Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Michael Carr esquire, Member for Bootle, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

Order for Consideration of Lords amendments read. To be considered tomorrow.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords]

Considered.

Ordered,

That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Read the Third time and passed.

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL

Order for consideration read.

To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — Oral Answers to Questions

Mr. Speaker: We now come to questions to the Department of Energy.

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order to ask whether the gross discourtesy shown to members of the Select Committee on Energy and to Scottish Members by making the important announcement about the Britoil golden share on Friday was connected with weekend press reports that the Minister with responsibility for oil is about to be sacked? If that is so—

Mr. Speaker: No, that has nothing to do with energy questions.

Mr. Salmond: I am coming to the point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It takes up time from other hon. Members' questions and it has nothing to do with energy questions today. This matter was raised on Friday, which is a full working day here.

Mr. Salmond: If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, what powers do you have to ensure that the rights of Back-Bench Members are protected from musical chairs on the Government Front Bench?

Mr. Speaker: This matter arose on Friday. I said then that it would have been convenient if we had known of it beforehand, but Friday is a working day in the House of Commons.

ENERGY

Friends of the Earth

Sir George Young: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet Friends of the Earth to discuss energy-related issues.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Tony Baldry): I have no present plans to meet Friends of the Earth.

Sir George Young: If my hon. Friend receives a request to meet these friendly and earthy people, will he say yes to it and then do all that he can to reassure them that the Government attach a high priority to the promotion of alternative and renewable forms of energy?

Mr. Baldry: My right hon. Friend has already had a meeting with Friends of the Earth. We shall always be happy to have further meetings because they would enable us to tell them that the Government are stimulating the development and application of all promising renewable energy sources by means of a major research, development and demonstration programme. To date the Department has spent more than £160 million on research, and the budget for this year is about £20 million. A special place has also been set aside for about 600 MW of capacity from renewable sources under the non-fossil fuel obligation—in addition to whatever is contracted for under the initial tranche. I would welcome the opportunity of giving Friends of the Earth this good news.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Is not the reality that there needs to be a substantial change in investment in favour of renewables and away from sources such as nuclear power? Will not the Minister find a positive response from organisations such as Friends of the Earth only when he shows that the Government understand the economics of energy and spend money in the right place?

Mr. Baldry: We pay significant regard to energy efficiency. The hon. Gentleman might like to recall that United Kingdom energy consumption in 1989 is less than it was in 1979, despite a 25 per cent. increase in gross domestic product.

Energy Efficiency

Mr. Forman: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what programmes his Energy Efficiency Office operates to disseminate advice on energy efficiency to consumers of electricity.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): We promote efficiency in the use of all sources of energy, including electricity.

Mr. Forman: I am grateful for that reply. What statutory role will there be after privatisation for the electricity companies to give advice on energy efficiency?

Mr. Morrison: The 12 distribution companies have a statutory role now under the Electricity Act 1989. That role will be overlooked by the Office of Electricity Regulation, which already has good contacts with my Energy Efficiency Office.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that he is one of the few Ministers who deals with Opposition questions on

energy efficiency and other matters with a great deal of courtesy? It makes a change. Is he as fed up as I am at reading in every paper over the weekend of his imminent demise and possible replacement by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)? If that happened would not it speak volumes about the appalling state of the Tory party?

Mr. Morrison: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his complimentary remarks. Unless I am gravely mistaken I am still standing here.

Gas Prices

Mr. David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Gas to discuss the level of gas prices for industrial consumers.

Mr. Peter Morrison: My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of British Gas from time to time to discuss a range of issues of mutual interest, including the fact that industrial gas prices have fallen by 41 per cent. in real terms over the past five years.

Mr. Davis: I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent news. Does he agree that that implies that a large part of British industry will now have a major competitive advantage? That, in conjunction with the fact that we have the lowest domestic gas prices in Europe, is a major vindication of our privatisation programme.

Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend. He spoke about domestic gas prices. Since privatisation the price of domestic gas has fallen by 14 per cent., so all round British Gas has a very good record.

Dr. Kim Howells: Can the Minister give any assurances and with any confidence that gas prices will not rise when gas is used as a bulk burn fuel in power stations?

Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the price of gas depends on the efficiency of British Gas and the other North sea gas producers. It also depends on supply and demand.

British Coal

Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much the Government have invested in British Coal since 1979.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): We have assisted the corporation in financing over £7 billion of new investment since 1979.

Mr. Hind: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have invested far more in the coal industry than did their predecessors? As a consequence, the arrangements between British Coal, National Power and PowerGen for the supply of coal mean a secure future for coal mining in Britain which will play a major part in future developments.

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The new contracts with the electricity generators provide British Coal with a large market opportunity, a guaranteed income stream over the next three years, and time to adjust to the needs of a competitive electricity market. My hon. Friend is also correct about the support that the Government have given to the coal industry.
Grants made available to British Coal under this Administration exceed in real terms the total assistance given by all previous Governments since nationalisation of the industry was completed.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Secretary of State comment on the paradox that the Government and almost all their supporters have boasted for the past decade or more about record investments in British Coal, but that the market opportunity, although the Secretary of State may describe it as large, is small? Every member of the Government and most of their supporters joyfully trooped through the Lobby to secure the replacement of the investment about which the Government boast.

Mr. Wakeham: The Government's support for the coal industry has enabled it to make massive improvements in productivity, which is now about 75 per cent. over the pre-strike level. That is a fine achievement and will enable British Coal to compete in the market at the end of the three-year contracts with the generators. I hope and expect that British Coal will achieve a substantial share of that market.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Given the massive size of investment in the industry, and that much of it is long term, should not we also take steps to ensure that British industry is not held hostage to fluctuations in world prices in coal? I refer in particular to the importation of sulphur-free coal.

Mr. Wakeham: It is impossible for any industry to be entirely insulated from world prices or environmental considerations, but the step that we have taken in improving the productivity of British Coal and playing our part in the European directive on emissions will enable British Coal to take advantage of the position in future.

Mr. Barron: Does the Secretary of State accept that many of the grants that have gone into the coal industry since 1979 were effectively investments in its closure and rundown? Does he agree that where there has been capital investment, to which he correctly referred, we must make sure that it has the long-term effect of producing coal? We must get way from three-year contracts, which are no good whatever to the coal industry. With the chairman of British Coal, will he get together people from National Power and PowerGen and begin discussions about long-term contracts so that investment is not wasted?

Mr. Wakeham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman this far: the three-year contracts are only a start and longer contracts are needed for the coal industry. I am sure that he will welcome the fact that a substantial part of the support that British Coal has received from the Government has enabled the necessary changes in manpower levels to be achieved in as humane and reasonable a way as possible.
The bulk of the assets being written down stem from the "Plan for Coal" initiated by the Labour party when it was in office. That was based on a forecast of coal demand that failed to materialise. I do not say that no recent investments will need to be written down as a result of the collapse of energy prices, but the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on British Coal's capital investment last year noted an improvement in the corporation's investment appraisal procedures. That augurs well for the future.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures demonstrate that the nationalisation of British Coal was an unmitigated disaster? When can the taxpayer look forward to that burden being removed?

Mr. Wakeham: If I had been around in 1946 I should not necessarily have agreed with the solution of the then Government. However, that might be controversial. The Government's policy is to privatise the coal industry. Proposals will be put before Parliament, but after the next election.

Energy Efficiency

Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet Neighbourhood Energy Action to discuss the home energy efficiency scheme.

Mr. Peter Morrison: I meet the director of Neighbourhood Energy Action and representatives of other organisations as necessary to discuss the development of the home energy efficiency scheme.

Mr. Powell: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware of the promise that the home energy efficiency scheme would be introduced by 1 November? All the people involved in introducing such a scheme, including a rock wool factory in my constituency, continue to state openly that the Government will not introduce the scheme by 1 November. The Government have backtracked on the promises that they made. The House and the nation want some assurance that the Government will get off their backside and do something about introducing the scheme by 1 November as they promised.

Mr. Morrison: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wanted the consultation that has taken place during the past few months. I hope that he would not have wanted us to go ahead without seeking the views of all groups involved, including Neighbourhood Energy Action. He will be pleased to hear that I hope shortly to come forward with the final details of the scheme. As he will realise, the scheme is a successor to the community insulation projects and, therefore, will flow naturally through.

Mr. Hannam: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the rate of energy efficiency improvement in this country has been running at more than double that of the European Community average? Is not that largely due to the success of our community insulation programme? What plans does my right hon. Friend have for continuing that success?

Mr. Morrison: I can certainly confirm that we have had a pretty good record during the past 10 years. However, it would be a mistake to be in any sense complacent, which is why I and my officials at the Energy Efficiency Office are visiting every part of the country to promote our message as best we can.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does not the Minister astonish even himself with his complacency? How can he claim to be so proud of energy efficiency improvements over the years when he is severely cutting funds to voluntary agencies helping to minimise energy loss? Is not that at best inconsistent with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, and, at worst, hypocritical?

Mr. Morrison: If I give the impression that I am complacent, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not. As I said before, the nation's energy spend amounts to about £40,000 million a year, and our target is to reduce that figure by £8,000 million. Substantial new moneys are coming to the Department for the home energy efficiency scheme, which will also help. I suspect that many of the deliverers—the people who do the job—will be voluntary agencies as well as companies in the private sector.

Mr. Dickens: When my right hon. Friend next talks about energy efficiency to neighbourhood groups, will he impress upon them the importance of the fluorescent gas-filled bulb, which lasts about five years and costs next to nothing to run, but which the bulb manufacturers of the world are slow to produce because they have a vested interest in the consumer replacing bulbs every five minutes? Will he try to persuade British manufacturers to produce those bulbs, because they can be obtained only from abroad at a cost of about £15 to £20 each? Nevertheless, hotels have caught on to their advantages.

Mr. Morrison: If anything, I am becoming a bit of a bulb bore. I assure my hon. Friend that I promote that message as hard as I can. He may not realise that such bulbs are now being produced in this country, and I hope that we shall find them on supermarket shelves from the autumn this year. Those bulbs are certainly very efficient, and every right hon. and hon. Member could benefit by using them in their homes.

Gas Act 1986

Mr. Nellist: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has to amend the Gas Act 1986.

Mr. Peter Morrison: None, Sir.

Mr. Nellist: I have raised before in the House the dilemma confronting Coventry city council, as a consequence of the Gas Act 1986, in relation to the cheaper price of contract rather than tariff supplies. The council has decided to heat 17 schools and old people's homes from now until 30 November with all their windows open, so that 56,000 extra therms will be consumed and the council will qualify for the cheaper contract gas, thus saving the city £30,000. The problem is not unique to Coventry among local authorities. The Minister and his Department responded to paragraph 4 of the Energy Select Committee's report, saying that they are confident that British Gas and the Office of Gas Supply will continue to discuss that aspect until a satisfactory solution is found. To whom is such a solution to be acceptable, and how long will those discussions continue?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman perfectly reasonably cites a problem which I accept exists. However, it is fair to say that in Coventry, as in any other part of the country where there is aggregation, there is no need for the city council to burn gas in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes.

Mr. Nellist: It is cheaper.

Mr. Morrison: That may be so, but in practice, because of aggregation, the total sum that the council will have to pay is no more than it would have paid a year ago. Nevertheless, efforts are being made by Ofgas, British Gas and myself to work out a solution to this complicated

problem. It is not a question of the legislation but of how one tapers through its provisions. Genuine efforts are being made to resolve the problem.

Mr. Rost: Does my right hon. Friend accept that that scandalous waste of gas has been going on too long? It is not only schools and the public sector that are deliberately wasting gas to pay less for it by qualifying for an industrial tariff, but commercial interests such as hotel groups and retail outlets. It pays users having a consumption of about 18,000 therms to burn up to 25,000 therms because they will then pay less for that gas. Is not it time either to allow aggregation below 25,000 therms or to amend the Gas Act 1986 so that that ridiculous anomaly can be removed?

Mr. Morrison: I do not quite agree with my hon. Friend's figures, but it is perfectly fair to say that my hon. Friend, like the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) points to a problem. Work is going on to see how that problem can be solved.

Mr. Doran: The privatisation of the utilities has certainly resulted in competition at the industrial and commercial ends of the market. But, as last week's increase in British Telecom's charges shows, there is severe discrimination against domestic consumers. What will the Government do to protect domestic gas consumers?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to one of my earlier replies when I said that since privatisation the domestic gas consumer is paying 14 per cent. less in real terms for gas.

Alternative Energy Sources

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he proposes to have discussions with the European Commission about alternative sources of energy.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have any current plans to have discussions with the European Commission. However, alternative sources of energy are likely to be relevant in future Council discussions. The next Energy Council is planned for 29 October.

Mr. Knox: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the balance between United Kingdom national research and European Community research is about right? Does not he think that more of this research should be undertaken on a European basis?

Mr. Morrison: I think that I am satisfied that the balance is about right in terms of the JOULE 2 and THERMIE programmes. As a result of the European Community coming together, the total spend by those nations on research and development is about right.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Minister ensure that at the Council of Ministers meeting on 29 October a clear proposition is laid before the Council that Dounreay, in the north of Scotland, should be developed as a centre of excellence for research into renewable energy sources, instead of the current proposition, which is to turn it into a nuclear dustbin?

Mr. Morrison: I do not agree with the final part of the hon. Lady's question, but I listened carefully to the former part.

Dr. Michael Clark: If and when my right hon. Friend has discussions with the European Commission on alternative energy sources, will he review with it the possibilities and opportunities for wave power? If he finds that there is potential for wave power, will he reassess the Salter duck, which was designed and developed in this country, but, unfortunately has not yet been exploited?

Mr. Morrison: As my hon. Friend will know, the Department spends a considerable amount of money on research and development into wave power, and currently we are reviewing that research. As for Mr. Salter and his ideas, my hon. Friend might be pleased to hear that he came to my office a few weeks ago where we had a long discussion, and that I intend to visit his laboratories in Edinburgh as soon as I can find the time.

Electricity Privatisation

Ms. Mowlam: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of the area distribution companies to discuss privatisation.

Mr. Wakeham: I meet regional electricity company chairmen regularly to discuss a range of matters and have recently set the debt levels of the 12 regional electricity companies and the National Grid Company. The total debt will be £2,843·5 million. I have arranged for the company-by-company figures to be published in the Official Report.

Ms. Mowlam: As 10 of those 12 companies have already failed to meet Government profit targets—it has not stopped the chairmen from taking substantial pay increases—how does the Secretary of State expect shareholders to make informed decisions if the only information that they will have is the knowledge of that failure to meet profit targets?

Mr. Wakeham: That is not the only information that they will have. A proper prospectus, as required by law, will be published and the information will be available there. That is the right time to assess those companies. The results to which the hon. Lady referred reflect the unusually mild winter and the recent storms, but also—and much more important—they are, to an extent, irrelevant under the new competitive regime that we have created.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my right hon. Friend yet had a chance to assess how the bidding system for electricity is working? Does he believe, as I do that it is already having the effect of bringing down the price of electricity to the distribution companies, which will be passed on to the consumer in the fullness of time?

Mr. Wakeham: Obviously, I am interested in looking at the information which comes in, but it is too early yet to form any firm conclusions about how the pool price will settle down. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that the arrangements that came into effect on 1 April mean that a great many of our larger electricity consumers have had the price of their electricity significantly reduced.

Mr. Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that if members of any Labour local authority had handled the public assets entrusted to it in the way in which the Government have handled the assets built up by public money and the labour of those in the industry, they would

have been charged with wilful misconduct, brought before the courts and barred from public office and that they would have been lucky to escape the charge of absolute political corruption?

Mr. Wakeham: Only the right hon. Gentleman could have put his question in that way. The Government dealt with the problem of the publicly owned electricity supply industry by vesting it on 31 March in the plcs, all of which are still owned by the Government. The Government will proceed to the privatisation of the majority of them, though not of Nuclear Electric. We shall see to it that we get a proper price for the sale of shares in those companies.

Mr. Dobson: When the Secretary of State last met the bosses of the distribution companies, did he tell them what steps he was taking to protect the independence of the privatised electricity companies? Does he recall that the House was promised on 13 December 1988 that no individual or company would be allowed to take more than a 15 per cent. stake in any of the electricity companies? Is that promise another victim of his desperation over privatisation? Is the Hanson solution intended only for PowerGen?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall be making a statement about the wider issues at a later date, but the competitive nature of the electricity supply industry that we have created also bears importantly on the position of the regulator. He received complaints some time after 1 April, as a result of which he made some very marginal changes in the way the arrangements work.

Following is the information:

Regional electricity companies: debt



£ million


Eastern Electricity plc
263·0


East Midlands Electricity plc
127·0


London Electricity plc
338·5


MANWEB plc
63·0


Midlands Electricity plc
120·0


Northern Electricity plc
164·0


NORWEB plc
153·0


Southern Electricity plc
295·0


SEEBOARD plc
125·0


South Wales Electricity plc
25·0


South Western Electricity plc
80·0


Yorkshire Electricity Group plc
189·0



1,942·5


The National Grid Company plc
901·0



2,843·5

Flue Gas Desulphurisation

Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most up-to-date estimate of the United Kingdom requirement for flue gas desulphurisation in (a) National Power and (b) PowerGen coal-fired power stations in 1998 and 2003.

Mr. Baldry: I expect flue gas desulphurisation to be retrofitted to 8 GW of power stations as part of measures to meet the sulphur dioxide reductions required by 1998.

Mr. Haynes: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I want to know what the Department is playing at. Is the Minister aware that only last year the Prime Minister promised that there would be


no increase in imports of low-sulphur coal? Yet the Department is jigging around with FGD reductions in our power stations. It is obviously selling out the environment and the mining industry. The Government have clearly sacrificed the environment and the mining industry on the altar of privatisation, so the Minister should get up there and come off it.

Mr. Baldry: I intend to say this quietly because I want to be sure that the hon. Gentleman hears it. This year, under the contract between British Coal and the generators, the generators will be taking 70 million tonnes of British coal. In evidence to the Select Committee, British Coal estimated that, with 8 GW of flue gas desulphurisation installed, the generators could burn 70 million tonnes of British coal in 1998. In other words, on British Coal's own evidence it will be perfectly feasible in 1998 for the generators, with 8 GW of FGD fitted, to burn exactly the same volume of British coal as they are burning today, if they so choose. More FGD could be retrofitted to meet the target for the year 2003, 13 years away, if the generators felt it appropriate nearer the time.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is not the key dimension the total amount of sulphur dioxide emissions across the whole of the generating industry and not just a particular sector of it?

Mr. Baldry: Everyone is determined that we should play our full part in reducing sulphur dioxide emissions. We are determined to meet the European Community's large combustion plant directive and to ensure that power stations play their part in meeting the requirement of the reduction of sulphur dioxide emissions, which is what the directive is all about. We shall ensure that the United Kingdom meets the terms of that directive. The Environmental Protection Bill now before Parliament provides statutory powers to ensure compliance with the legislation and the directive.

Mr. Morgan: Now that the Government have chickened out of their commitment to fit flue gas desulphurisation to 12,000 MW of power stations and their privatisation programme is looking like the charge of the electric light brigade, will the Minister say what discussions are taking place with Hanson about the acquisition of PowerGen? What part will chickening out of their environmental commitment play in the Government's discussions with Hanson, which acts as a scrap-metal merchant for large parts of the British economy? Does the Minister accept that privatisation is not so much a holy grail for the Government as the Turin shroud?

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman was clearly so busy polishing up his phrases for the benefit of parliamentary sketch writers that he did not listen to what I was saying. The Government are determined to meet the European Community's large combustion plant directive, under which certain targets are to be met in certain years. One of the target years is 1998. As I have made clear, on British Coal's own evidence to the Select Committee on Energy, with 8 GW of FGD retrofitted it will be perfectly possible for the generators, if they so choose, to burn exactly the same volume of British coal in 1998 as they do today.

Energy Conservation

Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what resources his Department devotes to improved energy conservation; what recent measures he has introduced to improve energy conservation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Our initiatives include the best practice programme, an increased role for the regional energy efficiency officers, and the public sector campaign. In addition, a new home energy efficiency scheme for low-income households is being prepared.

Mr. Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that energy conservation is as important as energy creation, and that every household in Britain can play its part? Is he aware that in Leicestershire, the average three-bedroomed, semi-detached house could make £50 savings per year for an investment of £100 on roof insulation or £30 per year for a £10 investment on lagging the tank?

Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend that households in Leicestershire, Lincolnshire or wherever could nearly all make a major contribution to their household bills and thus to the economy.

Mr. Tony Banks: There must be some way of converting all the energy that we use bobbing up and down in the House to provide energy for the House of Commons. More importantly, has the Minister noticed the high concentrations of photochemical smog in London during the hot spells in the past week or so? How do the Government intend to monitor the pollution levels and what do they intend to do about the causes of that major health hazard to Londoners?

Mr. Morrison: I have noticed every now and then a scudding cloud, as it were. I will refer the hon. Gentleman's question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most energy conservation-conscious industries is the glasshouse industry? Will he consider introducing a green tariff for those industries that recycle their flue gas and carbon dioxide as the glasshouse industry does? I know that my right hon. Friend is a defender of the environment, even in his own greenhouse.

Mr. Morrison: It is kind of my hon. Friend to refer to my propensity to enjoy my garden and, indeed, my greenhouse. I agree that people who use greenhouses do so most efficiently and effectively and to the enhancement of the environment. The question of taxation implications with which my hon. Friend is trying to tempt me would be better put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sizewell B

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much public money has been spent on Sizewell B to date, how much is committed currently, and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wakeham: A total of £1,510 million has been committed, of which £920 million has already been spent. both figures are at 1987 prices.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State recall the statement made at the Hinkley inquiry by Mr. Brian George, chief executive of the PWR group of Nuclear Electric, that if we did not build a family of PWRs, expenditure on Sizewell B would be extremely doubtful? Is not the reality that the nuclear industry will not only fail to make a profit but will not break even and that if it were in the private sector it would have gone bust long ago? What prevents the Government, when they are casting around for money to save the public purse, from considering the most obvious candidate—Sizewell and the nuclear industry?

Mr. Wakeham: Much of the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question will be contained in the response that I shall shortly be making to the Select Committee report and from which it would not be right to quote at the moment. I have made a thorough review of the costs of Sizewell B. On an avoidable cost basis—the only basis which matters for my decision—Sizewell B output is comparable with that from a combined cycle gas turbine, on central assumptions, and cheaper than that from a coal-fired plant. That is the essential decision that I have to take.

THE ARTS

Photography

Mr. Boyes: To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has met the chairman of the Council of Regional Arts Associations to discuss the regional arts associations' future policy towards, and financing of, photography.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): No, Sir. As I indicated to the hon. Gentleman on an earlier occasion, the Arts Council will be reviewing its support for photography as part of its development of a national strategy for the arts. The strategy will provide the framework within which the regional arts assocations will develop their own plans for photography.

Mr. Boyes: Is the Minister aware that recently I invited several 12 to 13-year-old Indian girls to the House of Commons to improve their photography, no doubt breaking a few hundred rules of this place in doing so? Given the universality of photography, will he support my plea for more cash for the Arts Council to enable photographers to be employed in schools to teach children to improve their composition and photographic skills?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman has done much over a long period to promote photography. The Arts Council gives £500,000 of taxpayers' money to support photography in this country and there has been a 10 per cent. increase in the overall budget this year. The Arts Council has an education unit, and I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's views to its attention.

Mr. Bowis: Given my right hon. Friend's encouragement of all aspects of the touring arts, will he consider encouraging the bringing together in one place of the history of photography and cinematography, including perhaps the works and artefacts of Edward Nuybridge, so that it can be taken around the country to encourage people in this form of the arts?

Mr. Luce: I note what my hon. Friend says. With the 150th anniversary last year of the invention of this form of art, much attention has focused on it. As my hon. Friend knows, the national museum of photography, film and television at Bradford does an outstanding job in promoting photography in this country.

Mr. Fisher: You may be aware, Mr. Speaker, that rumours are circulating that today could be the Minister's last Arts Question Time. If that is so, may I take the opportunity—on behalf of the whole House, I suspect—to pay tribute to him? He has made many friends in the arts world and is respected as a person who listens and cares about the arts. Many hon. Members would be reluctant to see him go because of the many things that he has achieved in his time. He should not, however, confuse that praise for him as a person with support for the Government's policies.
On that point, and arising out of the funding question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that whoever is Minister for the Arts in the coming weeks he or she will be fighting for an increase in the arts budget in this budget round as the Arts Council is set for a real-terms cut in its three-year funding and without an increase the arts will suffer enormously?

Mr. Luce: I am not sure what to make of the hon. Gentleman's generous remarks and I am not clear how photography is linked with my future. The Government's record on funding for the arts is remarkable. Since 1979, there has been a 45 per cent. increase in real terms in the overall amount of money available to the arts from the taxpayer. That excludes the remarkable increase in the overall amount of private sector funds, which has been the fuel for the expansion of resources available to the arts.

Mr. Cormack: In so far as the Government's record has been remarkable, it is largely due to my right hon. Friend's sterling endeavours. I hope that he will carry on in this job for many years and I urge him to do what he can to assist photography.

Mr. Luce: I shall do whatever I can to assist photography. All I can say is that an hour is a long time in politics.

European Convention on Heritage and Culture

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans he has to bring into force a European convention on heritage and culture by the end of 1992.

Mr. Luce: I am not aware of the existence of a European convention on heritage and culture. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the discussions taking place about arrangements for our heritage after 1992. These are at an early stage, but I am in close touch with my European Community colleagues on these issues.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister is right that there is not yet a European convention, but there is great concern that when the single European market comes into force at the end of 1992 there should be a convention to prevent the disappearance of works of particular merit through loopholes not only at national boundaries but at European boundaries. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to


pursue with urgency a proposal for such a convention which would supplement European law and would be in force in good time before the end of 1992?

Mr. Luce: I appreciate the importance of the hon. Gentleman's question. There is no doubt that there is concern about stolen works of art and their illicit export. These matters are under discussion by European Community Ministers, but it will take a little more time before we reach conclusions. The hon. Gentleman was right to imply that one of the implications of 1992 is that there will be no full-scale customs control at frontiers. We therefore have to find an alternative way of dealing satisfactorily with the illicit export of works of art. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall give great attention to this matter in the months ahead.

Mr. Jessel: Will my right hon. Friend, given his outstandingly successful work as Minister for the Arts in the United Kingdom, make it clear that the point of any international convention is to create duties and obligations? What on earth is the point of that in the arts? Is it not far better to run the arts from the United Kingdom?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right in the sense that article 36 of the treaty of Rome makes it clear that it is up to each individual state within the European Community to preserve its heritage in the way that it wishes. In this country, we have a liberal system in terms of free trade in works of art, but with some protection for the heritage. I believe that those principles should remain.

Mr. Rooker: Would not one possible advantage of such a convention on heritage and culure be that we could get laws banning censorship written down in a way which cannot be challenged? With such a convention, we would not end up with a ridiculous decision such as that made by the British Board of Film Classification, which is seeking to impose censorship on the publication of a book which most of us in a liberal society agree should be freely available to be read. It is ridiculous that we are faced with an accusation of double standards. That could end if there were a European convention.

Mr. Luce: I am not sure what bearing that has on heritage within the European Community. As the hon. Gentleman knows, however, it is important to stress that in this country we believe in freedom of expression, subject to the laws of the land. That is how it should be.

Curatorial Training

Mr. Gregory: To ask the Minister for the Arts how many public museums and galleries currently sponsor candidates for curatorial training; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Luce: This information is not held centrally. The Government recognise the importance of museums training, and have supported the establishment of the Museums Training Institute, for which £400,000 is being provided in the current financial year.

Mr. Gregory: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for the funds that he has made available through that quarter. Nevertheless, is he not concerned at the large number of museums and galleries employing untrained staff, many of whom would like to be trained?

Unfortunately, there are not enough places where they can go to be trained. Will my right hon. Friend consult our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science with the aim of making such places available, funded wherever possible by public museums and galleries?

Mr. Luce: I will look further at my hon. Friend's suggestion. He has taken a persistent interest in museums and galleries. I very much hope, however, that the £400,000 of taxpayers' money for the establishment of the Museums Training Institute will enable us to strengthen considerably the training available for management and volunteers, and also for attendants—thus raising still further the high standards in our museums.

Mr. Dalyell: In view of the enforced early retirement of Dr. Juliet Clutton-Brock, what arrangements will be made for curatorial training in archaeo-zoology and related sciences?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman has, as always, shown his capacity to ask the most penetrating question, and to expect Ministers to answer in specific terms. I shall look into the matter. I will, however, make the general point that it is important to find ways in which we can raise the standard of professionalism in our museums. That is not to say that that standard is not high already, but training facilities are inadequate and we need to do a great deal about that.

CIVIL SERVICE

Civil Service Trade Unions

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the civil service trade unions to discuss conditions of work.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): I meet the civil service unions from time to time to discuss a range of matters.

Mr. Skinner: Is there any truth in the rumour that civil servants get a special supplement for drawing up lists of sacked Ministers for the Prime Minister? If so, can we assume that Charles Powell receives the biggest bonus payment of all? When he gets the poke, will this Minister send him a letter of congratulation, or one of complaint?

Mr. Luce: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has the capacity to imagine himself as a civil servant. The mind boggles at the very thought, but if he put himself in the shoes of a civil servant—those of Mr. Powell, for instance—he would realise how utterly unreasonable it is to attack a civil servant who cannot defend himself.
Let me say without hesitation, that Mr. Powell—like every other civil servant in the country—serves the elected Government of the day with great distinction.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What would be the reaction of the Inland Revenue to its working conditions if it had to revalue every property in the country as part of a policy of reintroducing domestic rates?

Mr. Luce: I know that I answer questions on more than one subject, but I do not think that I have direct responsibility for that one.

Dr. Marek: I do not know whether there are any rumours about the Minister leaving his responsibility for the civil service, but if he is, I wish him well. Before he goes, however, I hope that he will spare a thought for the incompetence and bungling of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, his hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope), who has destroyed morale at the Crown Suppliers and also destroyed its trade. A trade surplus of £6·3 million two years ago has become a £12 million loss now and its value of £100 million has been turned into a £4 million deficit. The Minister has deprecated attacks on civil servants who cannot defend themselves. Will he therefore join me in defending the interests of those civil servants and ensure that, whatever happens at the Ministry, integrity is reintroduced into government and morale restored to the Crown Suppliers and the civil servants who work for it?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that morale in the civil service needs to be restored. As I go round the country, I see civil servants in different sections of the service doing a marvellous job with great enthusiasm. The Crown Suppliers is specifically a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. There is a clear question of deciding whether it is best to manage services through privatisation, through the creation of agencies or by some other means. The Government's sole concern is to ensure that the resources that we have are managed to the benefit of the public.

Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important conditions of work is a reasonable work load? Will he join me in utterly condemning those trade unions, particularly the National Union of Mineworkers, which have put an unreasonable work load on to our loyal civil servants by mismanaging their finances? Civil servants and the NUM are now busily trying to find out where all the money has gone. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that civil service trade union finances are much better managed than those of the NUM, where it is clear that they cannot count beyond 10 unless they take their boots off?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend makes an effective point. I have a high regard for the civil servants in this country. Compared with almost any others in the world, they do an outstanding job.

Appointments

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many appointments have been made at grades 1 to 3 since 1979.

Mr. Luce: There are approximately 650 posts at these grades, to which about 1,000 appointments have been made over this period. Totally accurate figures are not available for the early years.

Mr. Banks: I realise that the Minister is biased, but does he appreciate that those figures appear to some people to be a process of Thatcherisation of the civil service since 1979, as we know the general approach that the Prime Minister and her Ministers adopt to recruitment? It seems that taxpayers' money is being used to install Tory party loyalists—or stooges, in the jobs throughout No. 10—to

senior appointments in the civil service. Would not it be better to have a genuinely impartial appointments system or an open and honest spoils system rather than what appears to be the politically motivated, politically biased and hyprocritical system of appointment that exists now?

Mr. Luce: That was a colourful question, but the hon. Gentleman knows that the civil service in this country is utterly impartial and that the Government do not make political appointments to top professional civil service posts. Here I pray in aid the all-party Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, which in 1986 said that it had received
no convincing evidence that the British civil service is being or has been politicised.
That speaks for itself.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: How many of those appointments were women?

Mr. Luce: I cannot say how many of those 1,000 appointments are women. However, recruitment figures now show that more than 50 per cent., including high fliers, are women. There has been a big increase in the number of women in the civil service, but there are still very few at the top level. I hope that equality of opportunity will ensure that more get there.

Natural History Museum

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister for file Civil Service if he will make a statement on his meeting with the IPMS to discuss the future of personnel at the natural history museum.

Mr. Luce: I have recently received a request from the general secretary of the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists for a meeting. I have indicated that I will be happy to meet Mr. Brett and his officials at an appropriate time.

Mr. Dalyell: Would an appropriate time be before 30 September? Will the right hon. Gentleman place in the Library his responses to the letters that he has had from the Smithsonian? What does the Minister think about the 950 letters that he has received from distinguished institutions around the world pleading the case of the natural history museum?

Mr. Luce: With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I see no reason why the meeting should not be before 30 September. It should be possible to arrange something during September. Of course, I shall consider placing the exchange of letters in the Library as the hon. Gentleman suggested. I shall see what can be done. I remind the hon. Gentleman, as I have done before, that the natural history museum does an outstanding job and I stress that all collections at the museum continue to be accessible to the outside world. Researchers and staff will be available to give advice and if special research is necessary it is possible to make contractual arrangements for that with the museum.

Ethnic Monitoring

Mr. Janner: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement regarding his office's implementation of its ethnic monitoring policy.

Mr. Luce: My Department continues to monitor the ethnic origin of applicants and new entrants to assess the effectiveness of our equal opportunities policies.

Mr. Janner: I thank the Minister for that answer. If he does move on, he will at least have left behind the appreciation of many people for his personal efforts on equal opportunities. Does he recognise, however, that a vast amount remains to be done and that an equal opportunities monitoring policy is useless on its own without positive action to ensure its enforcement? What is the Minister doing to ensure that his policy is brought into real effect so that we get some black people at senior levels in the civil service?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman knows that at the end of May I launched a programme of action to ensure proper equality of opportunity for black and Asian people within the service. I stress that it is equality of opportunity and involves getting there on the basis of merit. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not disagree with that. I hope that he feels that the programme of action will facilitate that aim.

Disciplinary Code

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he has recently reviewed the civil service disciplinary code.

Mr. Luce: No, Sir.

Mrs. Gorman: Can my right hon. Friend tell me how the civil service disciplinary code works when, as appears to be the case with the Public Health Laboratory Service, bad advice is given to a Minister whereby a whole industry —in that case, the egg industry—suffers grievous damage? From my investigations, published recently in a book entitled "Chickengate", I found that most of the cases on which the Public Health Laboratory Service's evidence was based were wrongly interpreted and that poor hygiene was responsible for the salmonella, as it is today when cases of salmonella are increasing despite the slaughter more than a million chickens. How is the Public Health Laboratory Service to be held accountable for giving Ministers very bad advice?

Mr. Luce: At the end of the day, Ministers are accountable for the policies and actions in their area of responsibility and that principle should not be undermined. However, if a civil servant has broken a rule or performed incompetently, the disciplinary code exists and appropriate action can be taken.

Teachers' Pay

3 pm

Mr. Speaker: Statement Mr. MacGregor.

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, about the statement.

Mr. Speaker: Well, how can there be a point of order about a statement which we have not heard?

Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is unclear whether the statement applies only to England and Wales or to the United Kingdom. It was the same—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We had better wait and see.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman may get an opportunity—

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an abuse.

Mr. Douglas: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) may have an opportunity to put a question during the statement. I call Mr. MacGregor.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor: rose—

Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to sit down.

Mr. Douglas: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: In that case, I must order the hon. Gentleman to sit down.

Mr. Douglas: No, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I order the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. I do not want to take—

Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on the statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman to sit down.

Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I now order the hon. Gentleman to leave the Chamber for the remainder of today's sitting.

Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I repeat that I order the hon. Gentleman to leave the Chamber for the remainder of today's sitting.

Mr. Douglas: On a point of order. This is something else—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will put himself in jeopardy if he does not now obey the order of the Chair.

Mr. Douglas: We are entitled to know—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I give the hon. Member one final chance—

Mr. Douglas: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I name Mr. Dick Douglas.

Motion made, and Question put,

That Mr, Dick Douglas be suspended from the service of the House.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]

The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 25.

Division No. 310]
[3.34 pm


AYES


Arbuthnot, James
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gregory, Conal


Ashby, David
Hague, William


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hanley, Jeremy


Baldry, Tony
Hannam, John


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Batiste, Spencer
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Harris, David


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Haselhurst, Alan


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Haynes, Frank


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hayward, Robert


Boswell, Tim
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bowis, John
Hind, Kenneth


Boyes, Roland
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hordern, Sir Peter


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Brazier, Julian
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Burns, Simon
Irvine, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Jack, Michael


Butler, Chris
Janman, Tim


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jessel, Toby


Carrington, Matthew
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cartwright, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Key, Robert


Coleman, Donald
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Knapman, Roger


Couchman, James
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Cran, James
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Cunningham, Dr John
Knox, David


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lawrence, Ivan


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lightbown, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Dover, Den
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Durant, Tony
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Dykes, Hugh
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Favell, Tony
Madel, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Malins, Humfrey


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mans, Keith


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Maples, John


Flynn, Paul
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Forman, Nigel
Mates, Michael


Foster, Derek
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


French, Douglas
Michael, Alun


Gale, Roger
Miller, Sir Hal


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Moate, Roger


Golding, Mrs Llin
Monro, Sir Hector


Goodlad, Alastair
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Gow, Ian
Morrison, Sir Charles


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)






Moss, Malcolm
Spearing, Nigel


Mudd, David
Speller, Tony


Neale, Gerrard
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Squire, Robin


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stern, Michael


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Stevens, Lewis


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Page, Richard
Summerson, Hugo


Patnick, Irvine
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Price, Sir David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rhodes James, Robert
Tredinnick, David


Riddick, Graham
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rooker, Jeff
Waller, Gary


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Ward, John


Rost, Peter
Wheeler, Sir John


Rumbotd, Mrs Angela
Widdecombe, Ann


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wood, Timothy


Shersby, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sims, Roger



Skeet, Sir Trevor
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mr. Tom Sackville.


Soames, Hon Nicholas





NOES


Ashton, Joe
Meale, Alan


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Mullin, Chris


Bidwell, Sydney
Nellist, Dave


Cohen, Harry
Patchett, Terry


Cryer, Bob
Redmond, Martin


Cummings, John
Salmond, Alex


Douglas, Dick
Skinner, Dennis


Galloway, George
Vaz, Keith


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)



Lambie, David
Tellers for the Noes:


McAllion, John
Mrs. Margaret Ewing and


Madden, Max
Mr. Harry Barnes.


Mahon, Mrs Alice

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That Mr. Dick Douglas be suspended from the service of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I have to direct the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) to withdraw, in compliance with the order that the House has just made.

The hon. Member withdrew accordingly.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on new negotiating machinery for school teachers' pay and conditions.
I wrote to the local authority employers and the teacher unions on 26 April setting out proposals for new permanent pay negotiating machinery for settling the pay and conditions of school teachers in England and Wales. Over the past two months I have engaged in full and careful consultations on the basis of those proposals. I am now able to announce the Government's decisions about future machinery for determining the pay and conditions of school teachers. I intend at the earliest opportunity to bring forward to the House a Bill to give effect to these decisions.
Different and incompatible views on the proposals were expressed during the consultations. Most urged on us a restoration of negotiating rights for teachers; others preferred independent review, but they were not willing to agree the establishment of a permanent body similar to the present Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions. It is clear that we are far from a consensus in favour of independent review on a basis that would be acceptable.
Accordingly, we intend to provide for free negotiations between employers and teachers under an independent chairman. The Government will not be a party to those negotiations. There will be no pre-set financial limit on the negotiations. The employers will know the aggregate external finance that the Government are ready to make available for local authority expenditure as a whole and will consider what they can afford in the light of that. There will be a time limit on the negotiations.
If the negotiators agree recommendations before the time limit, it will fall to the Secretary of State to consider implementation. If the time limit passes without agreement, however, the negotiations will come to an end. The Government will seek recommendations instead from an independent advisory committee, broadly similar to the present interim advisory committee. This will not be arbitration. The Government will set the body a clear and specific remit. Again, it will fall to the Secretary of State to consider implementation.
I hope that it will normally be possible to accept the recommendations that are put to us, but we have also to provide for circumstances in which that is not the case. If the Government are unhappy with aspects of negotiated recommendations on pay and conditions they will be able to refer these issues back to the negotiators, giving their reasons. If agreement does not result from this process, however, the Government will need to be able to resolve the deadlock. We shall provide for that through a power for the Government to substitute their own provisions on matters referred back, subject to negative resolution of each House of Parliament. The Government would intend not normally to refer back recommendations on cost grounds if the overall cost was within the inter-quartile range of private sector settlements for non-manual employees.
Within the negotiating body there will be a separate sub-committee to deal with heads and deputies. Responsibility for initiating proposals for changes in pay and conditions of heads and deputies will rest with the sub-committee. The sub-committee's recommendations


will come to me for consideration unless both sides of the main committee agree to refer them back to the sub-committee, and subsequently to change them. The precise machinery for this and other, more detailed, features of our proposals are explained in the paper placed today in the Vote Office and in the Library of the House.
I recognise that some employers—be they local education authorities or the governors of grant-maintained schools—may judge that they could better respond to local needs and circumstances if they settled the pay and conditions of their teachers themselves. As envisaged in the consultation document, LEAs will have the opportunity to apply to me to opt out of the national provisions governing pay and conditions, on the basis that they are able to put in place satisfactory arrangements of their own. Grant-maintained schools, too, will be able to opt out of the national provisions.
Teachers are due a review of their pay to take effect next April. Given the need for legislation to establish the new negotiating arrangements, it would not be possible to deal with this settlement under the new arrangements, and that was accepted by all those whom I have been consulting. None supported the option of dealing with the settlement retrospectively through the new machinery once it is statutorily in place. There was insufficient agreement about the possibility of running the new machinery on a voluntary, shadow basis in advance of legislation. I have concluded, therefore, that I should seek the approval of the House later in the year to extend the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 for a further, and final, year, and to invite the interim advisory committee to make recommendations to me for a settlement to cover the year April 1991 to March 1992. The first settlement decided in the new machinery would be that to take effect from April 1992.
The arrangements which I have outlined offer full and fair opportunities for negotiations between teachers and their employers, and a means to resolve deadlock if the negotiators cannot agree. They acknowledge the interests of employers, teachers and Government in the determination of teachers' pay. They afford a basis for the peaceful resolution of questions of pay and conditions, and their adaptation to the changes which face our schools in the 1990s.

Mr. Jack Straw: Is the Secretary of State aware that the removal of negotiating rights from teachers in 1986 and the continued delay in re-establishing them has in itself been gravely damaging to teachers' motivation and self-respect, and that that is one reason why our schools face greater problems today than at any time in living memory? Will he confirm that by his statement the first negotiated settlement cannot take place until 1992, six years after the last one? Will he give more detail of the veto that he intends to retain?
Will the clear and specific remit to the new advisory committee include cash limits set without reference to the negotiations, notwithstanding the fact that in his statement the right hon. Gentleman said guardedly that there would be
no pre-set financial limit on the negotiations"?
Does that undertaking cover the exercise of his veto? Given the substantial powers of veto which the right hon. Gentleman is taking unto himself, does he understand the strong case for this to be subject to the affirmative procedure, not to the negative resolution procedure?
Is the Secretary of State aware that his proposal to allow individual local education authorities and grant-maintained schools to opt out of the national pay negotiating machinery will be seen as no more than an attempt by him to appease his critics on the right of the Conservative party and as a cheap dodge to avoid his responsibility for the current nationwide teacher shortage crisis? Why does he not understand that the reason why teacher shortages have risen by 50 per cent. in two years is primarily that teachers' pay nationally has fallen so far behind that of comparable groups, and that in real terms their pay is now even lower than in 1986?
If local authorities are allowed to set whatever salary scales they choose, what additional resources will the Secretary of State give them to back his words with hard cash? Since such an arrangement could work to solve teacher shortages only if it led nationally to leapfrogging and wage drift, how much does the Treasury think that this will add to public spending?
If a local education authority which is poll tax capped opts out of national pay bargaining, does the Secretary of State have the agreement of the Secretary of State for the Environment to lift poll tax capping in respect of such teachers' pay settlements?
Is the Secretary of State aware that, far from this being a new idea, such a system operated before the war and was abandoned because of the damage that it caused to the education service? Is he aware that the proposal is opposed by the Conservative-led Association of County Councils? Is he also aware that his own Interim Advisory Committee on Teachers' Pay and Conditions, under the chairmanship of the Conservative Lord Chilver, gave the issue of differential subject and regional pay the most thorough examination in both its 1988 and 1990 reports and rejected it on the grounds that it would reduce teacher mobility, be unfair and inflexible, would move shortages round rather than solve them, and would be ineffective? Why has the Secretary of State rejected such powerful advice from his own appointed committee? Why does not he build on the wide local discretion within a national framework which the interim advisory committee has recommended?
This proposal is a shallow and damaging trick. It will not provide an extra penny for the system nor guarantee an extra teacher in the classroom. It shows yet again that the Ministers who have so damaged our education service are incapable of improving it. It is not just failed Education Ministers who need to be removed, but failed and discredited policies which must be abandoned forthwith.

Mr. MacGregor: I reject all those charges and I shall endeavour to deal with as many of the hon. Gentleman's points as I can. He asked when the new negotiating machinery comes into operation. I made it clear to him, on the assumption that there will be legislation in the next parliamentary Session, that it would be in March 1992. I think that there was general agreement in all my discussions that it would be necessary to have some interim arrangement, and the discussions centred on that. In the light of those discussions, I have concluded that this is the most sensible way forward for one year. Teachers will recognise that, as this is the final year, the proposal is sensible.
The interim advisory committee did an excellent job throughout the period during which it carried these


responsibilities. Many of its recommendations were widely welcomed and had a good deal to do with a better career structure and pay and greater local flexibility in the system.
The hon. Gentleman asked about conditions for the use of either referring back or override powers. I shall consider all recommendations from the negotiating body on their merits. I expect that if there are issues that I want to address with override powers in mind, they would be concerned not just with costs but might be concerned—clearly one cannot be specific in advance because the matter is hypothetical—with a range of other factors, including professional duties and the pay structure. One possibility may be cases of disagreement about the pay of heads and deputy heads. As I have said, it is not possible to specify in advance, but I think that I have indicated why the powers are necessary.
The hon. Gentleman asked about a cash limit for any interim advisory committee or committee's recommendations. Clearly, such a possibility must be available to the Secretary of State. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is so surprised about that because I recently asked him in our correspondence whether he would have cash limits and he replied:
Cash limits would apply in the normal way … (if we inherited an IAC arrangement)".
A negative resolution offers a simpler procedure which will yield more timely pay settlements. That is clearly important in relation to some of the long delays that occurred in the machinery before 1986.
The hon. Gentleman asked about opting out. As he knows, there are teacher shortages in particular geographical areas, and in some parts of the country, especially in some London boroughs, the shortages are serious. I have been adopting a whole range of measures to try to assist local authorities to deal with that. The overall average vacancy in the country as a whole, excluding Greater London, is 1·3 per cent.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is 5·3 per cent. in Greater London.

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, 5·3 per cent. The proposals that we advocate build on local flexibility and will act in precisely the right way to respond to market conditions in relation to pay. Therefore, what the interim advisory committee has done is already extremely helpful. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the interim advisory committee recommendations this year, which I have fully accepted and which will be fully implemented by 1 January, came into effect after the collection of the vacancy survey data, details of which I announced recently. The pay recommendations will build on local flexibility and will be extremely helpful, not least in London, in resolving local shortages.
The hon. Gentleman referred to opting out. Precisely what I am doing will be helpful in resolving local teacher shortages and other difficulties. I am building on the local flexibility that we have achieved in the past three years, or so to tackle teacher issues. The proposed new machinery for opting out is a natural extension of that process.
Differential regional pay is also relevant to opting out. My statement today is not a set of proposals for regional pay, but I make it clear, as I have done on many occasions, that it is important to create greater differentials in the pay of individual teachers so as to relieve shortages in certain

subjects. Therefore, the increasing flexibility that we have achieved in the system is necessary to recruit mature entrants and people who have a range of skills which command a high market premium. Therefore, the proposals that I put before the House and recommend today will assist us further in addressing those issues. They are positive and constructive.
The hon. Gentleman asked for additional resources, but he will know that the amount of resources from aggregate external finance was settled in the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment last week and in the decisions about the breakdown of resources into subject areas in the autumn. Local authorities will know before they embark on the pay negotiations what is available from central Government.
It is extremely rich of the hon. Gentleman to keep pressing for additional resources, because each time I ask him about the matter he carefully avoids the question. He knows that the Labour party would not provide additional resources. It is worse than that from his point of view. He will be aware that in his response from the Front Bench on community care last week, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) committed the Labour party to an additional £1·5 billion. Where would that leave the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. James Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his refusal to introduce a Son of Burnham or Burnham mark 2 will be widely welcomed? Is he further aware that his proposals, which will allow local education authorities and grant-maintained schools to opt out of the national pay machinery, will be welcomed by schools, teachers, governors and parents and will do a great deal to answer problems of teacher recruitment and shortages? In short, his statement is widely welcomed, not only by Conservative Members but by people outside the House.

Mr. MacGregor: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. The proposals strike the right balance between the interests of the teachers in restoring their pay negotiating rights, those of their employers, who must take community charge payers into account, and the interests of the Government, who clearly have an interest because the taxpayers fund a considerable proportion of any local authority expenditure. I believe that the balance is right.
I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about the opportunities to opt out. We shall be legislating for some time to come. We shall provide clearly for not only the immediate and early stages of the legislation but the possibility of evolution. It will be for local education authorities and grant-maintained schools to decide if and when they wish to opt out. They should have the maximum flexibility to respond to local needs and circumstances. If they believe that the best way to achieve that is through establishing a local pay framework, they should have the opportunity to propose it. That will be particularly relevant to grant-maintained schools, where the governing body will be able to review the position in the school itself and possibly enjoy additional flexibility and freedom even beyond that which we have already given.

Mr. Peter Shore: Tower Hamlets has a teacher vacancy rate of more than 10 per cent., compared with the national average of a little more than 2 per cent. How does the Secretary of State propose


to prevent what could easily degenerate into a competitive scramble for scarce teaching resources spreading throughout the entire inner London area in particular? If an authority produces plans for paying its teachers more, can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that it will be able to obtain the resources necessary to meet the cost of those plans?

Mr. MacGregor: The new education authority in Tower Hamlets is already tackling the problems that it inherited from ILEA with great vigour and with considerable effect. I believe that we shall see a better position in September than last year, due to the way that that authority is tackling its tasks, the increased flexibility that we have allowed, and the increased possibilities open to London authorities as a consequence of the interim advisory committee's recommendations on teacher pay. As to the right hon. Gentleman's general question, a considerable amount of flexibility already exisits in the system, which education authorities can use if they judge that that is where they should put their priorities. By giving them the additional opportunity to opt out, I am only building on that and allowing education authorities, in the light of their local circumstances, to address that aspect further. As to resources, there is already available to Tower Hamlets, as to many inner London boroughs, a supplement for additional education need from central Government.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has not been tempted back to the old and discredited Burnham procedure. It must be right to move pay bargaining closer to schools, which is the trend that I detect in the statement. Will my right hon. Friend clarify how that might help with differential pay, in dealing with teacher shortages—which, as he knows, is still a serious and worrying problem?

Mr. MacGregor: The proposals represent a considerable advance on the discredited Burnham procedure. I will give two examples of that. There will be a timetable for negotiations, and no possibility of deadlock—both of which were problems in the past. The system that we have been building on for the past three years—thanks not least to the recommendations of the interim advisory committee —allows individual LEAs and schools to offer more flexible pay to recruit not only those offering scarce skills but those whom they particularly want to attract in dealing with specific problems in London. Considerable flexibility, offering significant scope, already exists—but given that that is the right approach, it is proper to build on it. Opting out provides an opportunity to do that.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Teachers will welcome the plans to restore negotiating rights, albeit a year late. Can the Secretary of State explain why that is so? Only recently, he was failing to admit that state of affairs, although it was apparent to all that that was the case. Will not his plans for opting out create a wage war between rich and attractive local authorities and poor and less attractive local authorities—despite the fact that the latter suffer the most teacher shortages? Will not opting out simply ratch up teacher costs and the problems for some local authorities?
The Secretary of State said that local authorities will have to apply to him for permission for their schools to opt out, but will grant-maintained schools have to do so—or will they be free to opt out come what may?

Mr. MacGregor: On the first point, it is very clear to me from the fairly extensive consultations that I have had twice with the six unions and with local authority employers that these are complex matters. That is why it is not possible to reach agreement earlier. It became clear that it simply would not be possible to reach agreement because of the wide disparity of views that I was still facing. I have had lengthy consultations which have helped considerably, not least on many of the details in the proposals, and I believe that the time is now right to take decisions. That is what I have done.
As regards the position of what the hon. Gentleman described as "poor" authorities, they already have a higher standard spending assessment allowance per pupil, compared with other areas, and that is reflected in aggregate external finance. For example, the allowance per primary pupil in Hackney is about 70 per cent. more than the allowance in Somerset, and that makes my point clearly. As for applications for opting out, local education authorities will require my approval, and that is clearly laid out in the document which is now in the Vote Office. Grant-maintained schools can apply to me for opting out and they will get it automatically.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there are two other statements, and ask for single questions.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend take the opt-out principle further than he has done, although I congratulate him on the points that he has made today? Has not the time come to assess teachers' salaries individually? Could not that be done under a system of local management of schools throughout the country? Would not that system be more effective in overcoming regional and subject teacher shortages than anything else could be? Is it fair to say that a teacher in deepest Wales must cost less than a teacher in deepest London?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. It will be open to local education authorities to decide whether, if they wish to apply to opt out, they want to put a different arrangement in place. That will be available to them and to grant-maintained schools. It is important to take into account the fact that the extra flexibility in the system now goes a considerable way to enable local education authorities and new governing bodies of schools, under LMS, to have greater flexibility between schools. As my hon. Friend will know, there are may opportunities, such as incentive allowances and paying teachers on different grades of the scale which are now available to schools, but there will be additional opportunities as a result of the proposals.

Ms. Harriet Harman: Is the Minister aware that the worst teacher shortages are in the poorest areas, and that those areas will be least able to opt out and to pay teachers more? Therefore, will not the opting-out proposal that he suggests make things worse as boroughs such as Lambeth and Southwark, which are unable to opt out and pay more, lose teachers, who are siphoned off to Bromley,


Surrey and Westminster, which can pay more? Is that not a fraudulent con-trick which will make the position in London far worse?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already pointed out to the House, and I repeat it to the hon. Lady, that authorities in the system, in the sort of boroughs that she talked about, already get higher standard spending allowances per pupil. I repeat, as an example, that the allowance per primary pupil in Hackney is about 70 per cent. more than the allowance in Somerset.

Mr. David Madel: With this greater financial independence, is my right hon. Friend encouraging local education authorities, in conjunction with housing authorities, to buy property which they can rent to teachers? That would be useful in many parts of the country where there are high housing costs—I am obviously thinking of Bedfordshire and its neighbouring counties.

Mr. MacGregor: Some authorities, especially London boroughs, which are also housing authorities, are considering arrangements, and one or two schemes are now coming through. I was happy to agree a scheme for some of the properties inherited from ILEA earlier this year, to help with the problem of teachers' housing in London.

Ms. Diane Abbott: The Secretary of State has referred to the level of standard spending assessment for Hackney. He will be aware that we get more because we are one of the poorest boroughs in the country. The Minister will also know that we have a teacher vacancy level of 12·5 per cent., which is the second highest in the country. Does the Minister agree that it is nonsense to give boroughs like Hackney facilities to pay teachers more, if he is not prepared to fund that increase? Hackney and parts of east London are increasingly engulfed by a serious teacher shortage crisis. His statement today is a cruel fraud on parents and teachers in Hackney. When will he address the issue seriously, when will he tackle the problem of housing costs and when will he do something to stop the blight of a generation of children in east London?

Mr. MacGregor: Hackney gets more through the additional educational needs element. That is the point of it. In addition, a number of new measures have been introduced this year for teachers' pay which London boroughs can use, some of which are specifically directed, as the hon. Lady knows, at London boroughs. We have been assisting the inner-London boroughs in their teacher recruitment campaign. A number of other measures that we have taken on teacher supply are designed to help inner London. The hon. Lady will have noticed that one of the problems in Hackney is that the borough has been unable to pay its teachers so far because of its computer arrangements. I hope that they will be sorted out soon, because the money is there.

Mr. Robert Key: I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing to a conclusion a particularly delicate and long procedure and thank him for keeping his promise to restore negotiating rights to teachers. Will he confirm

that the legislation that he outlined, which I shall welcome, will lead to far more open debate about the merits and demerits of teachers' pay than we ever had?

Mr. McGregor: Yes, I believe that that will be one result of the proposals, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming them.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Secretary of State realise that one of his statements is entirely wrong? If the present system provides flexibility, why is there a need for additional flexibility? If the present flexibility does not work, what makes the Secretary of State think that additional flexibility will work? Has he not taken into account the fact that staff are already leaving poll tax-capped authorities purely and simply because they find it easier to work for a non-poll tax-capped authority, and that the only ones who will suffer because of his ideas are the children whom we are supposed to educate?

Mr. McGregor: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, it is interesting that the vast majority of local education authorities were perfectly well able to draw up their education programmes this year without the need for community charge capping at all. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the sort of flexibility that we have now has come only fairly recently into the system, and since April has been built on considerably. Some of the benefits, therefore, have still to flow through. It is right to allow local education authorities and grant-maintained schools to make their own arrangements, if they think that that is a better way to meet local needs. Their arrangements should be allowed to evolve.

Dr. John G. Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend accept the warm and sincere congratulations of many hon. Members, and of those who are interested in education throughout the nation, on his proposals? Does he agree that the new negotiating procedure—a new chairman, a new sub-committee and a new concept of flexibility—heralds a new era in education, which we welcome?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My proposals regarding the negotiating machinery and the restoration of teachers' negotiating rights are a considerable advance on Burnham and overcome some of the difficulties of which everyone had become aware. They will, I am sure, provide a sensible balance between all the interests concerned.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: While I welcome the provision that local education authorities and grant-maintained schools will be able to set their own pay levels, which will enable them to respond to local needs and circumstances and to reward good teacher performance in the classroom, does not the Secretary of State recognise that inner-city boroughs such as Greenwich which are poll tax-capped will find it almost impossible to offer improved salaries to attract much-needed teachers, since cuts amounting to £10 million have to be made?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her welcome of the new flexibility, but may I point out to her that already there are immense variations in how local education authorities deal with priorities in their budgets. Let me give her one example. We have now moved to local management of schools. As a percentage of the general


schools budget, a considerable amount of money is held back by individual local education authorities. Haringey, for example, is holding back 25 per cent., whereas Berkshire is holding back 10 per cent. There is therefore considerable scope for getting the money into the schools. Furthermore, an assessment of the returns that we have already received shows clearly that for administration—for bureaucracy alone—between 2 per cent. and 10 per cent. is held back. There is, therefore, considerable scope for greater flexibility, including in pay.

Dr. Keith Hampson: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's remarks, may I ask him to improve the general standards of literacy by asking the Department of Education and Science not to use the verb "disapply"? As the major Labour education authorities may start leapfrogging on salaries to increase all teachers' salaries, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a case for taking a firmer line at local school level? Given the disparities that my right hon. Friend has just outlined, will he ensure that the governors in LMS schemes will have a greater say over differentials of pay?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend's main point. I am looking carefully at the returns that we are getting on the local management of schools from local education authorities to see whether there is justification for such a wide disparities in the amount held back in the centre—

Mr. Straw: The Government agreed the formulae.

Mr. MacGregor: We gave flexibility to local authorities, but the figures are raising some interesting issues, one of which is that there may be more opportunity for getting more money into the schools, and hence teachers' pay, in many authorities. We have created a system where everyone will be able to see the figures and ask the questions.
On my hon. Friend's first point, he will notice that I used the words "opting out" in my statement, but I am advised that "disapply" is the correct legal word for the document.

Mr. David Lambie: As a former chief negotiator of teachers' salaries in Scotland, may I ask the Secretary of State, on behalf of the Government, to give a guarantee that no such proposals will be introduced into the Scottish teachers' salary negotiations?

Mr. MacGregor: Such matters are not my responsibility.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: As a former local education authority officer, I welcome the flexibility that my right hon. Friend is giving to the state sector which already exists in the independent sector in other professions. There is no reason why teachers in Totnes and Toxteth should be paid the same. Does he agree that the Opposition have shown a lack of reality—they may believe that teachers would uproot themselves every few months to go to new schools, but schools would be wary about employing such people.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes the point that there are considerable opportunities to allow greater responsibility at school and governing body level, which is consistent with all that we are trying to do in the other reforms. Therefore, I agree with him.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Secretary of State aware that the percentage vacancy rate, according to his Department, is 13 per cent. in the London borough of Newham, in the next-door borough of Hackney it is 12·5 per cent. and in Tower Hamlets it is 10·2 per cent.—there is an enormous concentration of teacher shortages in the east end. Newham is not in the Inner London education authority area, but has the highest percentage vacancy rate. Does he not realise that he is perpetrating a heartless fraud on the people of this country, particularly the east end, by suggesting that Newham, Hackney and Tower Hamlets—the three poorest boroughs in the country—are able to deal with the crisis? They simply do not have the resources. Will he make the resources available, because without them, we cannot solve the present crisis?

Mr MacGregor: What is interesting when we look at the London figures is the wide disparity in London itself—Brent's vacancy level is 1·5 per cent. Local issues are involved and we are doing all that we can to deal with teacher supply. It is then for local education authorities to recruit. Not all the issues affecting the boroughs to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention are entirely educational; there are problems of attracting people to those boroughs, which is where we are trying to help.

Mr. Donald Thompson: I know that my right hon. Friend is aware that my local authority keeps 40 per cent. for the centre. Is he also aware that governors will be overwhelmed and delighted at the proposal to enable them to choose first division teachers and put pressure on LEA to choose first division teachers instead of fourth division football clubs.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will know that, as a result of the obligation on local education authorities to publish the arrangements and figures involved in the local management of schools, it will be possible for governing bodies, governers, teachers, staff, parents, the general public and him to see whether the holdback is too great, exert pressure if they think it is, and ask questions.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Does the Secretary of State accept the crisis in education will not be solved by these rather cheap measures, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) described them? Will he address himself to capping? Is he aware that the Tories in Calderdale propose to wipe out in-service training for teachers? If that happens, they will not be trained to fulfil the requirements of the national curriculum. What guarantee will he give local authorities on funding? Is he aware that the 40 per cent. that is kept at the centre by Calderdale is spent on special needs, music and everything else that makes up a comprehensive education system? It is nonsense to suggest that it has anything to do with spending a lot on administration.

Mr. MacGregor: Government funding is allocated on a fair basis. Local authorities—and, within them, local education authorities—must decide their priorities.

Mr. Alan Haselhust: For counties such as Essex, which is an area of high housing cost and is experiencing increasing problems recruiting teachers, is not my right hon. Friend's announcement about opting out a natural extension of the help that Essex county


council has been receiving through education support grant—and on its own initiative—to attract teachers to its employ?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will know that to recruit back qualified teachers who are not teaching—for example, because they are bringing up a young family—I have increased education support grant from £2 million to £10 million. In Essex and many other parts of the country, much more can be done to keep teachers who are not working—there are about 200,000 such teachers aged between 31 and 44—in touch with education changes so that, when they wish to return to work, they will not fear that education has moved on as a result of the national curriculum.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the Secretary of State note that in the House the other day some hon. Members demonstrated the corrupt nature of this year's distribution of central support for local government and therefore have profound anxieties that that corrupt system might continue when the new arrangements come into operation? Does he accept that, whatever some teachers might tell him, those who observe and are interested in British education recognise that the crisis of morale is worse now than at any time since the war and that the proposals of the Government, who have turned the educator into the bookkeeper, will not restore the morale of the profession?

Mr. MacGregor: I am aware that every local authority feels disadvantaged compared with every other local authority, but to describe the system as corrupt is ludicrous. We have progressed well in achieving a fairer system. The main issue affecting teacher morale is that they feel that they have an enormous challenge in implementing the national curriculum. More and more of them are aware that I am introducing the national curriculum in a way that will enable them to cope. As I visit schools, I find that that many more, as they get to grips with the national curriculum, are excited and enthusiastic and becoming positive about it.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on achieving a solution that is well adapted to current reality, but during his consultations how many teaching unions showed a willingness to enter into no-strike agreements to enhance the professional standing of their members in the community at large?

Mr. MacGregor: Very few indeed.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the Secretary of State aware that his continual use of the word "flexibility" shows only that his scheme and statement are like a conjuring trick: they do not produce any more money or teachers. The slickness of the word defeats the logic of the news. As the London borough of Newham has £5 million less than it requires for education, what would he do as a councillor in Newham? Would he be unfair to the children or to the poll tax payer? What would he do, given the circumstances that he has produced in the statement?

Mr. MacGregor: Community charge payers' interests must also be taken into account in all these decisions. The hon. Gentleman has missed the point that increasing

flexibility, which we have already and on which we hope to build, could increase the supply of teachers. I believe that it will do that by recruiting qualified teachers who are not teaching, because they are, for example, bringing up a family, and by encouraging mature entrants to join the teaching profession. There is considerable interest among people in other careers about moving into teaching. This flexibility will enable a pay system to be adopted in schools which can respond to those interests and needs and will thereby increase the supply of teachers.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the information sent to me in a letter by the National Union of Teachers to the effect that, far from there being a shortage of teachers, 400,000 trained teachers are not practising their profession? Rather than poaching teachers, my right hon. Friend's measures will enable us to attract that enormous unused resource back.

Mr. MacGregor: That is precisely the point I made in reply to the previous two questions. There is a considerable supply—sometimes inelegantly described as a "pool"—of people who are not teaching for good reasons, for example, because they are bringing up a family and wish to be with their young children. Many such people will wish to return to teaching. It is important to have arrangements to encourage them to do so, including keeping in touch with them while they are not working as teachers.

Mr. Martin Redmond: Will the Secretary of State accept that his statement is a recipe for chaos and that it is dictatorship under the guise of democracy—if not, why retain an absolute veto? What discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with the Department of the Environment about money values?

Mr. MacGregor: These matters have been fully discussed in the Government as a whole. I do not for one moment accept the hon. Gentleman's initial allegation. We have override powers because the Government must have the opportunity and the powers to take account of taxpayers' needs, should that prove necessary.

Mr. John Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed by all those who recognise that national negotiations have created regional shortages? Is he aware also that his statement will be particularly welcome to London local education authorities, which will at long last be able to give realistic London weighting allowances?

Mr. MacGregor: I note what my hon. Friend has said. I hope that the statement will be welcomed by the excellent grant-maintained school which I visited in his constituency.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Is not the Secretary of State setting up a Heath Robinson machinery to avoid restoring free and fair negotiating rights to the trade unions? Are not aggregate external financing, the time limit and his veto a three-barrelled gun held at the head of the teachers' unions? When will the right hon. Gentleman realise that the continuation of inadequate pay procedures, which his statement confirms, does nothing to tackle the serious problems of teacher shortages and low morale?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon.Gentleman must recognise that aggregate external finance cannot be unlimited; it


comes from the taxpayer. I shall again quote from the letter written to me by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw):
Cash limits would apply in the normal way, as they have in respect of other local authority employees whose salaries are negotiated".

Mr. Derek Fatchett: Does the Secretary of State recognise that he has shown amazing ignorance of the way in which the standard spending assessments work? The right hon. Gentleman says that the poorer London boroughs are given more money. Does he understand that they are given additional resources because it costs more to provide education in those boroughs and, without the additional resources, they would not be able to provide an education service?
Is it not a deceit on the children and parents in those boroughs and on people in all parts of the country facing teacher shortages for the Secretary of State to pretend that the resources that are currently available in the SSAs will result in the recruitment of additional teachers? Not one additional resource is made available through this statement. Is not the reality of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he is merely redistributing resources and teachers from the poorer to the richer boroughs because the Government do not care about the children of Lambeth, Hackney or the other boroughs which are suffering from shortages? This statement is a deceit on all those children and all those boroughs.

Mr. MacGregor: I reject that absolutely. I made precisely the same point myself about additional educational needs: the extra resources were going into the boroughs through the additional educational needs budget, because it was recognised that there was such a need.
The statement was about teachers' negotiating machinery; there are other occasions when we discuss resources. I remind the hon. Gentleman that each time that I have asked the Labour party what it would propose to do about the additional money it has always ducked the question. We know why: so many of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues are beginning to make additional spending commitments, and the bill is starting to add up. It is clear what the Labour party's position is.

Mr. Speaker: Statement—Mr. Secretary Wakeham.

Mr. Lambie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the Secretary of State for Education and Science was answering questions on his statement, I asked him to give a guarantee on behalf of the Government that his proposals would not affect Scotland and Scottish teachers' salary negotiations. The right hon. Gentleman said that

that was not his responsibility. He may not have a responsibility to Back-Benchers, Mr. Speaker, but you have. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) was expelled from the House today for making a point similar to mine—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Unhappily, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) was—I say this with deep regret—expelled from the House for raising a point of order before we knew what was contained in the statement. However, I am now prepared to hear a point of order on what was contained in the statement.

Mr. Lambie: My point of order is this, Mr. Speaker. We have recently heard similar statements from Secretaries of State—representatives of the Government—but when Scottish Members have asked whether the statements are to apply to Scotland, we have been told that they have no responsibility. About an hour later, we have heard that the Secretary of State for Scotland has dealt with the position in Scotland in a written answer, but is not prepared to come to the House to defend his policies against—

Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the time, I will stop the hon. Gentleman there. I am not aware of any written answer on this matter. The hon. Gentleman's best course—I keep saying this—would be to take up the matter with hon. Members on his own Front Bench to see whether, through the usual channels, a statement relative to Scotland could be made.

Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Lambie: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: No. I have told the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) that I cannot say any more. Mr. Spearing.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. In a democratic, accountable body such as the House, is there not a doctrine that all Ministers are responsible and accountable for the Government's actions? When it comes to the question of a time for debate, clearly the Leader of the House must arrange occasions for debates on matters about which debate is agreed to be necessary. What we have heard about this afternoon will be of enormous interest to Scotland, as well as to England and Wales. Is it not the duty of the Secretary of State at least to tell the House whether such a statement is contemplated for another part of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Government, not for me.

PowerGen (Hanson plc)

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the House that I have been approached by Hanson plc which has expressed a firm and serious interest in making an offer for PowerGen plc.
I shall need to consider this approach. I have therefore informed the chairman of PowerGen about it, and appropriate information will be made available to Hanson.
The Government have taken no final decision to proceed with a trade sale of PowerGen. I have a duty to the taxpayer to get a proper return from the sale of the electricity companies. I therefore propose to pursue discussions with Hanson in parallel with pushing forward preparations for the flotation of PowerGen.
I should make it clear at the outset that, if Hanson decides to make a binding offer, I shall invite other companies to tender for PowerGen on a similar basis. Bids will fall to be considered under the competition legislation in the normal way.
The House will rightly want to know what a sale of this sort would mean for the management and work force of PowerGen and for the electricity supply industry generally. As the owner of PowerGen on behalf of the taxpayer, I would intend to lay down conditions which any single purchaser of the business must abide by. All PowerGen's contractual rights and obligations would continue.
In particular, PowerGen is party to the collective industrial relations arrangements for the industry: any new owner would take on the same rights and obligations as PowerGen has now. PowerGen would continue to participate in and be bound by the rules of the electricity supply pension scheme. There would be no change in the pension arrangements for present pensioners and employees of PowerGen. Arrangements would also be made for PowerGen employees to receive benefits broadly comparable in financial terms to those they would have received in a public offering of the company's shares. I shall be talking to the trades unions tomorrow. PowerGen's fuel purchase and electricity supply contracts would continue.
Further conditions would include a restriction on a purchaser's ability to dispose of all or a substantial part of PowerGen's business and a commitment to carry out certain expenditure on environmental plant. There would also be a provision, in line with my proposals for the rest of the electricity industry, to ensure that the taxpayer shared in profits from later property disposals.
The private sector has always thrived on competition to the benefit of customers, employees and shareholders. I believe that Hanson's approach is a vote of confidence in the company and its management which, however it is privatised, will be a major competitor in the new electricity supply market.

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holdborn and St.Pancras): The statement shows that the Government's electricity privatisation programme is now in total disarray. Surely it signals the end of what they used to describe as "popular capitalism". The Government promised wider share ownership but now propose instead to sell PowerGen to

the major contributor to the Tory party's funds. That seems to me to be unpopular capitalism. Instead of the eager individuals hoping to buy shares that the Government promised, we have discovered that the Secretary of State has been shuffling around the City like a second-rate ministerial Arthur Daley, offering a nice little earner to his friends, hawking PowerGen round the City basically as a tax dodge.
This secret wheeling and dealing is a disgraceful way to treat valuable assets for which the public have paid. It is an even more disgraceful way to deal with the future of a vital industry and its hardworking, well-trained and committed staff. I am convinced that the people of this country would rather see PowerGen in the hands of its present managers than in the hands of the Hanson Trust, which is notorious mainly as an asset stripper. Hanson is interested in PowerGen because of its real estate portfolio and because it sees its potential as a high-tech tax haven, against which it can set its tax liabilities on other parts of its business. No one with those motives should be allowed to take over PowerGen.
The Secretary of State said that he would like to inform the House that he has been approached by Hanson. Can he confirm that his secret talks with Hanson have been going on since May and that, had I not leaked the information about this at the end of last week, he would have told the House nothing? Can he tell us precisely when the horse trading began? When did the Inland Revenue and the Treasury become involved? Can he tell us whether the Inland Revenue and the Treasury have been offering free expert advice on tax avoidance on this transaction as they did with the despicable Rover transaction? Can he tell us what other sweeteners, as yet undisclosed, are involved? Can he tell us what will be the total loss to the Inland Revenue on this transaction? What price have the Government been quoting for PowerGen in the talks with Hanson? Can he confirm that the price that the Government have quoted in those talks for PowerGen's 18,000 MW of plant is less than the cost of building 1,200 MW of plant at Sizewell B? Can he tell us what sort of fee Sir Michael Richardson of Rothschild will receive for his involvement in the transaction? Can he tell the House whether he would accept a similar proposition for the disposal of National Power or any of the other companies?
To return to the question I asked at Question Time, what has happened to the Government's solemn promise to the House that no individual or company would be allowed to own more than 15 per cent. of any of the electricity companies?
The whole electricity privatisation programme is a sleazy shambles. It is a long endless series: write-off, sell-off, rip-off, tip-off, pay-off and now, for the staff, lay-off. PowerGen is not a plaything but a vital industry supplying light, power and heat to the people of this country. In our view, the Hanson Trust is not fit to own it. The next Labour Government will hold it, like any other shareholders, to a maximum share ownership of 15 per cent., as promised by this Government.

Mr. Michael Stern: How much will that cost?

Mr. Dobson: It will not cost the taxpayer a penny.
We will also hold a full-scale, independent inquiry into the whole sleazy process of electricity privatisation in which City companies have already made over £100 million


before a share has been sold. Before the Government decided on privatisation, the electricity supply industry was a large, up-to-date, well run and highly profitable public enterprise with a well trained, hard-working and highly motivated staff. Now it is a fragmented shambles and its managers and staff do not know whether they are coming or going.
In his first statement to the House as the Secretary of State, for Energy, the right hon. Gentleman saw sense and withdrew the nuclear power stations from the sale. He should now have the courage to abandon the whole crazy project of privatisation and ensure instead that this vital industry is in the hands of people with the skill, training and responsibility to run it on behalf of the nation and not for private gain.

Mr. Wakeham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman this far—this is an important industry. I wish that he had treated an important industry and important matters with a degree of seriousness rather than with the extravagant and nonsensical language in which he addressed most of his remarks. The hon. Gentleman said that the privatisation programme is in disarray but that is far from the truth. As I have told the House, we were on course to complete the privatisation when the approach was received by the Government.

Mr. Dobson: In May?

Mr. Wakeham: I will come to that. Far from there being something secret about it, I have come to the House to make this statement, as I always intended to do, as soon as I had something which would make a proper and meaningful statement. That position did not appertain until this morning and I have come to the House now. There are no sweeteners or anything of that sort.
As a matter of fact, I have had no discussions with the Inland Revenue in connection with this approach.
Most of the hon. Gentleman's comments arise because he has misunderstood, in spite of my statement, the nature of the position. We have had an approach. No decision has been taken to proceed with a trade sale. If we do proceed with one, there will be a competitive tender. It has not been settled before.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's comments about wider share ownership, I must point out to him that since the Government have been in power, privatisation has been a great success in widening share ownership and we have increased the number of shareholders in this country from about 3 million to around 11 million. Even if this particular trade sale proceeds, and I have said that that is by no means settled at this stage, 15 out of 16 of the companies, according to our present plans, will be floated and the shares sold to the public. I should also point out that PowerGen has under 10 per cent. of the electricity industry's work force.
The hon. Gentleman's remarks about Hanson plc were absolutely disgraceful. Hanson plc is a highly successful company with more than 90,000 employees. Its approach shows its confidence in PowerGen and the new electricity market. Hanson has hundreds of thousands of shareholders.
With regard to advisers, I must inform the hon. Gentleman that I have appointed J. Henry Schroder Wagg to advise me, jointly with Kleinwort Benson. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that if we

decide to proceed with a trade sale, the costs are likely to be substantially lower than for a flotation. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
The hon. Gentleman asked a question about National Power. My announcement is about PowerGen and it has no direct impact on National Power. I can confirm that, subject to market conditions at the time, the Government's present intention is to offer shares in National Power for sale to the public in February 1991. However, I must consider the interests of the taxpayer. If a serious offer were made for National Power, I should have to look at it. [Laughter.] Would those Opposition Members who are sniggering expect me not to look at it? They had better consider—[Interruption.] That is right. They may not like this, but their cavalier approach to public expenditure will cost them very dear at the next election. That is for sure. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked me a lot of questions and there is one more that I must answer.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the 15 per cent. and the golden share. The purpose of a golden share and the 15 per cent. trigger is to protect against a change in ownership after a flotation has taken place. The Government believe that, if a trade sale proceeds, a golden share would be inappropriate for a subsidiary. The Government believe that the public interest is better protected by a contractual provision in the sale and purchase agreement than in having an indeterminate special share. We seek the protection that we want, if we go ahead by this route, by the sale and purchase agreement and not by a 15 per cent. trigger and golden share which we do not believe would work.

Mr. Michael Alison: Can my right hon. Friend confirm what I imagine to be the case, which is that nothing that he has said this afternoon will in any way interrupt the installation of flue gas desulphurisation equipment in PowerGen power stations where such installation is in prospect?

Mr. Wakeham: Absolutely. PowerGen, like all owners of large combustion plants in the United Kingdom, will have to comply with the large combustion plant directive. I shall require the retrofitting of 4 GW of FGD as a condition of sale. PowerGen has plans to fit FGD to Ratcliffe on Soar and the Ferrybridge C power stations. I have planning applications before me for those two projects so I must be careful what I say. I am confident that the ownership of PowerGen will not affect those plans.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: In a number of respects this recalls the sale of Rover to BAe. Once the negotiations with Hanson have been completed., will genuine competitive bids be allowed and will more information be given to the competitors than was allowed to competitors of BAe? Will the Secretary of State also consider valuation? It will be essential that a proper valuation of all the assets is arranged before the deal goes through. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's move on clawback, but will the clawback provision to ensure that the taxpayer gets the proper value of assets that are undervalued at the time, because of circumstances that have changed, mean that the taxpayer will receive all the advantages or a major part of the advantages that are subsequently shown to have arisen? Has the Inland Revenue had consultations with Hanson over the bid?

Mr. Wakeham: I am certainly in no position to know what dealings Hanson has with the Inland Revenue. All I can say is that, quite properly, those have formed no part of my discussions. Unlike some of his Opposition Front-Bench colleagues, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has had some experience of these matters and he will know that consultations between a taxpayer and the Inland Revenue are confidential, and Ministers would not expect to be informed about them. However, I know of no such consultations and I should be very surprised if they have taken place in what must be considered a hypothetical situation. The right hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the Inland Revenue has enough work to do dealing with actual cases without our asking a series of hypothetical questions.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, if there is to be a binding offer from Hanson plc, it is very proper that the competition that we will see take place is based on providing every other serious contender the same information that is being given to Hanson plc. That is absolutely right and we shall see to it. We shall see that the public interest is properly protected with regard to the sale of assets and proper arrangements will be made. I will ensure that I am properly advised, as I have been very careful to be properly advised in dealing with PowerGen as a public flotation, about a proper value for the assets.

Sir Trevor Skeet: While the Scretary of State will certainly get a premium price for the sale which will be good for the taxpayer, will he consider the implications of what might follow from his statement? My right hon. Friend said that National Power could be sold. However, it could be sold to RWE of Germany or Electricit? de France, in which case most of the electricity manufacturing facilities in the United Kingdom would go to foreign countries. Will my right hon. Friend also consider that one of the principal beneficiaries of a sale of PowerGen to Hanson could be the American Peabody Coal Company and that could lead to the import of more sulphur-free coal into the United Kingdom?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend has read rather more into my statement than I believe it is possible to read into it. I described to the House the nature of the approach that I had from Hanson plc and how I intended to deal with it in the public interest. There has been no approach for National Power and, therefore, we are proceeding with its public flotation as we intended, in parallel with our negotiations on PowerGen.
On the question of the coal contracts with PowerGen, in the event of the Hanson bid becoming binding and its being the top bidder in any bidding arrangements that we make, the terms of the contract between PowerGen and British Coal for the supply of coal until 1993 will be honoured. Thereafter, it will be for British Coal to produce coal at the price and quality to make it the supplier of choice. That will not change. The position will still be the same, whoever owns PowerGen. As my hon. Friend knows, unfair price discrimination by any purchaser of coal would attract the attentions of the competition authorities.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: Whether the right hon. Gentleman likes it or not, the statement is a major change of policy in relation to the privatisation of electricity supply—indeed, it is a volte face to some extent.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the present proposition were agreed, it would mean a major increase in coal imports in this country? The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he has had no contact with the Inland Revenue about the proposition. Of course the House will accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, but is he aware that, as a result of the statement which was sneaked through the House on Friday, in the regions it will mean £20 million tax paid to the oil company? Are we discussing today, as a matter of fact, millions upon millions of pounds of tax breaks due to whatever company gets PowerGen, and at the expense of the taxpayer?

Mr. Wakeham: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the statement in two ways. First, as I have said, I have received an approach from Hanson plc, and I have said not that I have accepted it but that I shall consider it and the way in which I shall consider it. To do less would be to fail in my duty to the taxpayer. The tax liabilities of any company, whether it be an oil company or whatever, are not matters for me. Such matters are not a concern of mine and I do not take part in any of the negotiations. I assure the hon. Gentleman that they have not been part of the discussions. There is no proposed change, sweetener or arrangement in the tax laws to facilitate this transaction.
Again, with regard to British Coal's future, British Coal will honour contracts until 1993, and thereafter it will be for British Coal to produce coal of the quality and price that will make it the supplier of choice. That will be the position whoever owns PowerGen.

Dr. Michael Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the golden share that has been associated with other energy-related companies when they have gone into the private sector is a powerful device, as it ultimately gives the Government the opportunity of ensuring that the taxpayer is protected? Will he ensure, therefore, that the conditions and clauses to which he referred in his statement are comprehensive and can be guaranteed and underwritten by law to ensure that, in this instance too, the taxpayer will be protected?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right. Others may not fully appreciate it, so I should repeat that the purpose of a golden share is to trigger something in the event of there being a significant change in the shareholdings in a company. It is not an arrangement to protect a subsidiary, which, in this case, PowerGen would become, of Hanson plc or whoever bought it. The way in which to protect—

Mr. Dobson: What about the 15 per cent. limit?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman really does not understand how these things work.
The way in which to protect the public interest in this case is to make sure that the purchase and sale agreement of the shares in PowerGen to whoever bids covers all the points that are required to be covered in the public interest. That is much more effective than taking a golden share in a subsidiary company, which is not quoted and for which no share transactions will be taking place.

Mr. Simon Hughes: If the Secretary of State opts for a trade sale, would not it mean two reversals of policy? First, there would be the reversal of the policy that believed that flotation would be possible. Has he not received advice that it may not be


possible to float PowerGen and National Power next year with any success? Secondly, there would clearly be a reversal of the policy of public participation in asset sales. It can mean no other. Therefore, will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he is prepared to countenance those two further reversals of Government policy? Are there no conditions governing to whom such a business can be sold, no conditions governing whether they should be national or foreign, and no conditions governing, for example, whether they should be contributors to the Government?

Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my statement—

Mr. Hughes: I did.

Mr. Wakeham: Then he should not have asked a question that suggested that he had not listened. I set out at considerable length a range of conditions that needed to be satisfied before we would sell or agree to sell the shares in PowerGen to any purchaser. That protection will exist. The task that the Government have set is to put the electricity supply industry into the private sector. That is what we are seeking to achieve—

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Private hands, more like.

Mr. Wakeham: No, it is already in public ownership. We are now putting it into the private sector.
I am not saying for a minute that we have determined to go ahead with this trade sale, but, even if we do, as I have already said, 15 out of the 16 companies in the electricity supply industry will be floated and shares will be sold to the public. As I have said, PowerGen has well under 10 per cent. of the electricity work force.

Mr. Andy Stewart: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his guarantee that the coal contracts agreed between British Coal and the power-generating companies will be honoured? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a bit rich for the Opposition to go on about importing coal when they had an opportunity to vote down the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, but only 49 Opposition Members bothered to turn up and vote on Second Reading?

Mr. Wakeham: That is a matter in which I shall not get involved. The Opposition do not appreciate—if they do, they do not give credit for it—just how much the Government have done to support the coal industry over recent years. As I said in answer to questions today, the Government have given more financial assistance to the coal industry in real terms than all the Governments since nationalisation put together. That is a substantial record. Parliament recently passed a Bill that has written off British Coal's debts and given it a chance for the future. For the first time, we have a long-term contract for British Coal which will enable it to plan for its future and to become competitive in this industry.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the Secretary of State aware that, on the edge of my constituency, there are three massive power stations at Cottam, High Marnham and West Burton, on which several thousand families depend for a living? Will he give an assurance that, when he meets the unions tomorrow, there will be no redundancies and that, if there are to be any redundancies, workers will get the same redundancy money as the miners got, and not

just an assurance on their pensions? Is it a fact that in the case of Rover and British Aerospace the Government gave the buyers sweeteners to take the company away and that, in this case, the buyer is giving the Government sweeteners for their election fund to rip off the public?

Mr. Wakeham: Again, the hon. Gentleman does not want to understand the nature of the transaction which is that, should we have a binding offer, there will be an open competition between Hanson and the others. Questions on the number of employees in the industry and in the power stations are not for me but for the management of the industries concerned. I assure the House that they will continue to deal with such questions as sympathetically as possible and in the proper way, as they would under any management.

Mr. John Hannam: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if more than one firm bid is received for the company in the future that would show a welcome show of confidence in the privatisation of electricity generation? The Opposition, instead of threatening an 85 per cent. confiscation of the shares in the company, should support such an offer as in the best interests of the British taxpayer.

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that, contrary to what the Opposition have sought to suggest this is a vote of confidence in the industry. It shows that PowerGen is an attractive company and that sophisiticated investors already see the attractions of it. It is a good omen for the sale of National Power as well as a good omen for the sale of PowerGen, should we decide that, in the end, it is better to go for a public flotation.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Would the Secretary of State give the House and the country an assurance that such pillaging of a public asset will not be subsidised or sweetened through the agency of the Inland Revenue? Will he also relieve my anxieties about this, because his predecessor, in a reply to me at the time of the introduction of the Electricity Act 1989, gave an assurance that that privatisation would not lead to unemployment? In fact the former Secretary of State said that there would be more jobs rather than fewer as a result of that privatisation. Are we not seeing yet another inconsistency in the Government's approach?

Mr. Wakeham: The numbers of people employed in the power-generation industry will be a matter for the management, not for me.
As for the continual reference to taxation matters, I can only say that they have formed no part of the discussions I have had. I know of no such discussions. There are no plans to bring into discussions any proposals that bear any relation to taxation. There is no intention, so far as I know, to change the law on taxation to change anyone's liability. Those matters are, of course, primarily for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but, in so far as I have any knowledge of the matter, there is nothing in those suggestions.

Mr. Tim Smith: Would it not have been irresponsible if my right hon. Friend has not given serious consideration to this approach from whatever quarter it came? Surely my right hon. Friend is right to give a high priority to the interests of the taxpayer. Can he confirm that on present plans it will, rather unusually in this case,


be possible to compare the price-earnings ratio for one company sold through a public flotation with the price-earnings ratio for another sold by a trade sale?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, found, in a subsequent investigation into these affairs, that the Government had treated in a cavalier fashion a serious offer for the purchase of the shares and had not investigated it properly, I would not like to be under the lash of the criticism that would come, quite rightly, from his Committee. The offer has been made by a successful company and the Government believe that it is serious. We have a proper duty to look into it.

Mr. Tim Dalyell: As the negotiations have been going on since May, can the Secretary of State clarify the exact nature of the commitment to which he referred in his opening statement to the House—that PowerGen would carry out certain expenditure on environmental plant? Are any costs tagged to what I imagine to be the desulphurisation of plant? What is the value of that commitment? Those who had been talking about it up to May should be clear about what that commitment means, given it was mentioned in the opening statement.

Mr. Wakeham: The details of any arrangement have not been talked about—they must be tied up before we have a binding offer, if we get one, from Hanson plc. The sort of conditions that I will require to see in the contract entered into by any purchaser will cover the question of FGD and deal with noxious gases. PowerGen has made a number of commitments in that respect and we shall require that the purchaser gives us a binding undertaking that those commitments will be fulfilled.

Mr. Michael Stern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in his most important statement this afternoon, the shadow spokesman on energy, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), committed a future Labour Government to renationalising at least 85 per cent. of PowerGen without compensation—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and at no cost to the taxpayer, he said? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that it is somewhat rich for the Opposition, having spent months complaining at the costs of the privatisation, to criticise my right hon. Friend for finding a way in which to undertake that privatisation while saving those costs?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), whom I have had the pleasure of knowing and working with for a number of years, takes a broad view of such matters, especially when dealing with questions of public expenditure.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Secretary of State will be aware that Hanson is a formidable bid-and-break-up machine. What assurances can he give us that massive asset-stripping will not take place should PowerGen pass to Hanson?

Mr. Wakeham: Again, I refer the hon. Gentleman to my statement, in which I said that the purchase and sale agreement would require binding contractual obligations

from the purchaser in respect of such matters. We would have to be satisfied that the public interest would be protected by that agreement.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be greatly welcomed on three particular counts? First, he has reaffirmed that the conditions on which power is generated will continue. Secondly, he has taken cognisance of what the PAC said—there will be a proper valuation of the assets and a proper clawback provision. On that point will he confer with the Comptroller and Auditor General on what the proper percentage should be? Thirdly, the statement is welcome because, at last, we have a Secretary of State who is prepared to come early to the House to reconfirm that he is not committed to this course, but that he will do what is in the public interest.

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend speaks with considerable authority in these matters. I am grateful to him and I shall note carefully the points he raised.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Secretary of State suffering from midsummer madness? Is he asking the House seriously to believe that the way in which to conduct competitive tendering is to have secret negotiations with a preferred bidder, and then to come to the House when he has been flushed out? He is now pretending that, after months of discussion, when all the information has been available and the bid agreed, he will make that information available to other potential bidders.
If the right hon. Gentleman is serious about competitive tendering even on a trade sale basis, why does not he make an offer to any company interested in buying PowerGen to come to the Government, look at the books and discuss an offer? If that is not the right hon. Gentleman's planned procedure, is not it reasonable to believe that Lord Hanson read the frank interview given by Lord King a couple of days ago when he defended giving money to the Tory party on the grounds that it was good for business? Is the sale to be Lord Hanson's pay-off?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman should ponder what he said, as I do not believe that he has the interests of the management or the work force of PowerGen at heart. At this moment I have no firm contract with anyone. I have received a serious offer of interest, which I am exploring. I shall seek professional advice on how best to proceed, but I have given a firm undertaking to the House that I intend to see carried through.

Mr. Dobson: From Kleinwort Benson.

Mr. Wakeham: I think the hon. Gentleman had better listen.
I have given a serious undertaking to the House that, should we decide to proceed and a binding offer is made by Hanson plc, any information given to Hanson plc will be made available to any other serious bidder that comes along. In that way we shall have a competitive tender. That is the way in which I intend to proceed, if my advisers believe that that is the best way in which to protect the public interest.

Mr. Ian Bruce: May I preface my question by saying that I own shares in Hanson plc. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, before the approach by Hanson, the electricity industry had been trying regularly


to talk down the value of its assets so that it would end up with a profitable company at a low purchase price and, therefore, show good profits against those assets? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the one certain thing about interest coming from Hanson or any other company is that the taxpayer will end up with greater value for the assets being sold than would otherwise have been the case?

Mr. Wakeham: I accept that, in the cut and thrust of negotiations, there are sometimes two different views about the prospects for the future. But my impression of all the electricity supply companies with which I have been dealing—both the generators and the former area boards—is that they have good managements that are anxious to do what is right for their present shareholders—the Government—and for their future shareholders. We have had tough, but, I think, frank and fair discussions on these matters and I have no complaints to make. Nevertheless, I agree that competitive tendering can do nothing other than demonstrate clearly the proper value of the company in the circumstances.

Mr. Bob Cryer: What cost is involved in obtaining the advice of J. Henry Schroder Wagg? Is it under £1 million or over £1 million in round terms? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Hanson plc has given many thousands of pounds to the Conservative party? Can he confirm that, in local government, anyone involved with the receipt of such money by a political party would not be allowed to take part in debates or to vote? Does he agree that the Government can clear up the noxious whiff of political corruption surrounding this whole episode only by refusing to sell to Hanson or to any other organisation that has poured money into Tory party coffers? If they do not, people outside will draw the natural conclusion that what is involved is a pay-off for the bribe that the Tories have received.

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot confirm any such thing. The hon. Gentleman indulges in wild fantasies about these matters. I believe that the taxpayers' interests require that, when faced with an expression of interest such as this, a Secretary of State should be properly advised by people who are competent to advise. I am seeking such advice and an appropriate fee will be determined. For a limited time, the hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member of the Labour Government—although I recall that he found the restraints of office rather irksome—and he conducted his negotiations in the same way as we have conducted ours. I can say with absolute certainty that if we proceed with a trade sale, the costs are likely to be substantially lower than those involved in a flotation, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

Mr. Peter Rost: In addition to ensuring that the company realised a higher price at a lower cost, would not the sale of PowerGen by competitive tender, rather than by public offer for sale, be likely to increase genuine competition by reducing the risk of a cosy duopoly?

Mr. Wakeham: There are many things in the Electricity Act, in the control of the director-general and in, our competition laws to ensure that we do not run into the difficulties of a duopoly on which my hon. Friend has pondered, although I agree with him that if Hanson plc or some other company purchased the shares in PowerGen, the competitive nature of the industry would be improved.

Mr. John McAllion: The Government originally promised special rates to electricity employees and preference to electricity consumers in the buying of shares. How can those promises possibly be honoured in a trade sale to one of the Prime Minister's closest friends? Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to rule out any possibility of this kind of corrupt practice being applied to Scotland, by specifically rejecting any question of a trade sale for either of the Scottish-based companies?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman can hardly expect me to give him any sort of assurances if he asks such unbalanced questions. I said in my statement that, if we proceed with a trade sale, those employees of PowerGen who would otherwise have received shares at a preferential rate will be compensated financially by an equivalent amount and will have the freedom to do whatever they like with their money.

Mr. Graham Allen: I understand that the Secretary of State is still fairly well connected with the Conservative party. Will he tell us how much money Hanson plc has given to the Conservative party in the past 10 years and how much he knows it will donate to the Conservative party up to the next election? Is not this another case of a company from over here doing very well for hon. Members over on the Conservative Benches? When did the secret negotiations begin? Did the right hon. Gentleman know the truth in May? After all, we have discovered that the truth was known about other matters, such as the British Aerospace affair. Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell the House the truth and will he tell us how much the Government and the Conservative party will make from the deal?

Mr. Wakeham: One thing is certain: I have no ministerial responsibility to answer for the finances of the Conservative party and I do not believe that these are proper questions for me to be asked. I have not dealt with that aspect of the matter. I have told the House that I have received a serious offer from a highly respectable company and I have explained to the House how I intend to deal with the matter. I have also told the House that I reported to it as soon as I had something concrete to say. I could not have come to the House before now.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does not the Secretary of State admit that Lord Hanson is a favourite drinking companion of the Prime Minister? Why does not he admit that, after 10 years of explosive growth and asset-stripping, it was reported in the financial press last month that Hanson plc had run into trouble with its American interests and had to sell off Smith-Corona? Is not one of the reasons for the proposal announced by the Secretary of State today to bail out Hanson plc? Will the right hon. Gentleman now guarantee that when the company is sold off, no Cabinet Ministers will be given a job on the board? Will he also guarantee, on behalf of the Tory party, that not a single penny will be received by that party if the takeover is completed?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman goes on about drinking companions. I do not mind having a drink with him from time to time, but the Prime Minister is probably wiser if she prefers to have a drink with Lord Hanson.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of the


comments made about Hanson plc are squalid, foolish and narrow minded and that it is sheer nonsense to suggest that a political donation can enter into the sale or purchase of a public asset? Does my right hon. Friend accept, however, that in the sale of any public asset of the size of PowerGen, only a very limited number of companies—perhaps three or four—have the funds available to enter into a private auction? Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that, if possible, one should enter into such negotiations with great care as there are huge dangers because so few people are involved? Does not he agree that it would be sensible to keep at least 40 per cent. of the shares so that, over a three-year period—this has happened before—we can see whether the prosperity can be shared and some of this foolish criticism can be abated?

Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestions. As they came from him, I shall consider them, but I am not sure that the prospective purchasers of PowerGen are quite as restricted in number as he suggests. I think that there are rather more of them around, but we shall have to see.

Mr. Dobson: I seek clarification of two points. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, far from his coming to the House as soon as he could, these secret talks have been going on since May?
Secondly, we all accept that, as the right hon. Gentleman said in his statement, he has a duty to the taxpayer to derive a proper return from the sale of the electricity companies, but does not he have a parallel duty to ensure that the Inland Revenue does not lose an equivalent amount? Surely it is naive in the extreme to go into these negotiations without considering the tax write-off consequences for Hanson plc?

Mr. Wakeham: I have said that I came to the House as soon as I felt that I had something to say to it. This morning I received the last piece of information that I needed before I could make the statement.
I confirm that, in a broad way, discussions on the best way to effect the sale have been going on for a number of weeks, but it was not until last Monday when I saw the chairman of PowerGen that I felt able to give Hanson plc any information that was not already in the public domain. We have moved fairly rapidly since last Monday—

Mr. Dobson: Since the right hon. Gentleman was rumbled.

Mr. Wakeham: when the first confidential information was given to Hanson.
The hon. Gentleman does not understand the way in which our tax system works. The tax affairs of individual companies—if the hon. Gentleman will not take this from me, he can take it from his right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), a former Treasury Minister with whom I remember debating on a number of occasions—and of individual taxpayers are confidential, and Ministers, quite rightly, have no access to them. I have no knowledge of the tax affairs of PowerGen, or of Hanson plc, or of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras or of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Local Government Finance (Wales)

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about my proposals for local government finance in Wales for 1991–92 and about the review of the community charge.
The 1990–91 settlement, which my predecessor outlined in the House 12 months ago, gave Welsh councils an outstanding opportunity to budget sensibly and to offer Welsh charge payers the prospect of community charges averaging only £173. Their response, as every one now knows, was disappointing. Spending in Wales rose on average by 12 per cent.—indeed, for district councils, the increase was no less than 20 per cent.—and by well above any measure of inflation. The result was an average community charge some £60 higher than necessary.
This spending increase, while closer to plans than that of similar English authorities, is far too high. For 1991–92, therefore, while I have taken due account of the views of local authorities and their associations—expressed to me most recently at a meeting of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on 4 July—I have also had regard to the wider question of the level at which it would be right for authorities in aggregate to spend next year in order to deliver an appropriate level of service, and I have considered too the need for a higher level of efficiency savings to be sought.
Taking all these factors into account, I consider it right to propose a level of total standard spending for 1991–92 at £2,436 million. That is about £316 million more than the equivalent figure for 1990–91, and represents an increase of 8 per cent. above authorities' budgets for 1990–91.
I propose to set the level of aggregate external finance, or AEF, at £1,939 million, which is 11·2 per cent. higher than last year, and—after allowing for the financing of the safety net, which applies in England only—that is equal to the increase which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced for England lat Thursday. This is a very substantial increase, and I urge councils to recognise that and to pass on the benefits of this injection of funding to their chargepayers, instead of seeking to boost spending still further. In the autumn I will announce details of the split of AEF into its three component parts, namely, revenue support grant; the distributable amount of national non-domestic rates; and certain specific grants towards current expenditure.
Under my proposals the community charge for standard spending in Wales will be £228. This is, I emphasise, an entirely achievable figure given the generous increases that I have proposed in spending and Exchequer grant; but if it is to be the average actual charge in Wales for 1991–92 councils will have to budget responsibly and spend in line with plans. Charge payers will expect them to do so and will quickly realise that a higher average level of charges will be directly attributable to overspending by their local authorities.
Protection for charge payers from unnecessarily high spending and charges will, I hope, be unnecessary. But local authorities should know that I am fully prepared to step in to protect their charge payers by making vigorous use of my charge capping powers. Next year these will be applied both to excessive spending in relation to standard spending assessments or SSAs, and to excessive


year-on-year increases in spending by authorities spending above their SSA for 1991–92. I propose specifically for this year to give an advance indication of the criteria that I will use in making decisions about charge capping, so that authorities are aware of them at the time they take their budget decisions.
Members will know that the Government have reviewed the operation of the community charge and have reaffirmed their commitment to the basic principle of the new system: that almost all adults should contribute towards the cost of local services. Within that framework, however, I have proposals for a number of changes in the operation of the system.
For the standard community charge, which applies where a domestic property is no one's sole or main residence, I propose to reduce the maximum standard charge which local authorities have discretion to levy in a number of exceptional cases. I have in mind, for example, those who are required as a condition of employment to live in a particular property; people in houses with an empty granny flat; and those whose home is empty because they have gone to care for someone else. I also propose to help those who are having difficulty selling a property, by extending the period during which a zero charge must be levied.
All my proposals should, subject to consultation, be in operation from 1 April 1991, and I trust that they will be widely welcomed. They are set out in a consultation paper issue to local authorities and to other interested parties last Thursday; copies have been placed in the Vote Office and the Library of the House.
I turn now to the position of small businesses. There has been concern about people who live over the shop, who pay rates on their businesses and who are also liable to pay the community charge. There is no fundamental issue of principle here because all business property is liable to rates, and all adults are liable for the community charge. I do, however, recognise, that this group of businesses may need more time to adjust to the new system, and so I intend to amend the business rate transitional arrangements, for small composite hereditaments only, to limit increases from 1991–92 to 10 per cent. in real terms instead of the current maximum of 15 per cent.
The present exemption from non-domestic rates for people who make bed-and-breakfast accommodation in their own homes available for less than 100 days a year has also, as I know from many of my right hon. and hon. Friends caused some difficulty. I therefore propose to change this rule from 1 April 1991 and will shortly issue a consultation paper outlining a range of options based on the amount of accommodation made available rather than the time for which it is available.
Finally, I have considered again the operation of the distinctively different system of community charge transitional relief in Wales. The £20 million provided for 1990–91 has assisted some 750,000 Welsh charge payers and provided transitional relief in more than 300 qualifying communities, with reductions of up to £93 available to assist charge payers in areas where rates bills were traditionally low. The scheme has been outstandingly successful in channelling relief into those communities where it has been most needed, and thereby cushioning the impact of the new system where that has been appropriate.
It had originally been intended that lower levels of transitional relief would be available in 1991–92 and 1992–93, with the scheme to be phased out by the end of

that year. 1 now propose a postponement of that phasing out, so that the sum available will remain at £20 million for 1991–92 and, indeed, for 1992–93. That is an increase of 50 per cent. above planned levels, and the scheme will also be extended to 1994–95. In all other respects the scheme will remain unchanged.
Those are my proposals for the operation of the local government finance system in Wales in 1991–92. The settlement that I have proposed honours the commitment made by my predecessors that no resources would be lost to Wales as a result of moving to the new system. I am, of course, ready to consider all representations on the proposed settlement and I will be consulting the local authority associations in detail on my proposals. I shall then bring forward more detailed arrangements for all aspects of the settlement in the autumn. It is right to emphasise that the settlement offers substantial increases in total standard spending and grant. With greater realism and responsibility from Welsh local government in setting budgets for 1991–92, charges in Wales should average only £228, which is a reduction of £4 in the levels set this year. I remind Welsh authorities that the position of the charge payer—their customer—is paramount, and I look to them to recognise that simple fact.

Mr. Barry Jones: Before I ask a question on the statement by the Secretary of State for Wales, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why the Government's decision to make a statement was indicated at late as 2 pm on the Common's annunciator? That was the first time that hon. Members knew that a statement would be made. When the statement was first announced on the annunciator, it was flagged as the second statement and not the third. Less prudent Members may well have temporarily left the confines of the Palace and, arguably, will have missed the statement. The Leader of the House is in his place and may later seek to explain this extraordinary omission.
I welcome the increases in standard spending and aggregate external finance. Any increase is welcome, because Wales has suffered greatly from the imposition of the poll tax. I deplore the attack on Welsh local authorities because no local authorities are more loyal and co-operative, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that. In that respect his statement was unworthy. Those local authorities warned the Government and the Welsh Office not to put the poll tax in place in Wales. Now we find that it is deeply flawed and that the right hon. Gentleman has had to come to the House to make changes around the edges.
Inflation is running at approximately 10 per cent. Is not the right hon. Gentleman's provision insufficient, given that local authority costs run well ahead of general inflation? Last year the provision was insufficient, and is not this year's provision for inflation a defect in the statement?
How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to assist county authorities on pay and salaries? Those authorities are facing settlements for teachers, lecturers in further education, manual workers and the police and fire staffs. The right hon. Gentleman should spell out his provision for those crucial sectors, because in that context the statement appears to be seriously defective.
Is it not the case that, while transitional relief in Wales remains at £20 million, in England it has increased dramatically? It is not as good as it should be, and the right


hon. Gentleman should tell us why. How many communities in Wales will be excluded from transitional relief? Last year in north Wales, 207 communities out of a total of 247 were excluded.
Is it not the case that, throughout Wales, at least 500 communities were excluded from transitional relief? In some instances almost whole counties were excluded. We note that transitional relief expires after the likely date of the general election. How strange, how coincidental, that transitional relief should run beyond the next general election. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that serious examples of inequity about transitional relief are now manifesting themselves in Wales?
Care in the community is a serious matter and places a major burden of expectation on local authorities. Have not the Government retreated on care in the community because of the implications for poll tax bills? With one eye on the general election, have not the Government resolved to delay the domiciliary care of the most vulnerable citizens in Wales? Has not the poll tax in effect blighted the prospect of improved care for many elderly and handicapped people? It seems that the Government have put themselves in grave difficulty over the poll tax. It is quite disgraceful that vulnerable citizens must now pick up the tab when what they need is our urgent care and help.
Borough and district treasurers are under the gravest pressure from the poll tax, first because they must operate a major means-testing bureaucracy and secondly, because many people are not paying the poll tax, thus contributing to a plunge in the public sector budgetary surplus. Is it not the case that in the first quarter of this financial year some 20 per cent. of our people have not paid the poll tax? What are the consequences of non-collection for the budgets of Welsh local authorities?
In the context of legislation, where in the statement is the extra money to enable the counties to respond to the severe challenge of local management of schools? There are inevitable cost implications, as there are for implementing the national curriculum and improving the fabric of our schools in Wales.
Where in the statement is the extra money to implement the Environmental Protection Bill 1990 with its challenge on street cleaning and, indeed, the many green challenges that it contains? Where is the extra cash to respond to the new Food Safety Act 1990 and the new Water Act 1989 and the new home renovation grants?
In conclusion, I remind the Secretary of State that his hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) referred in the House on 1 March 1989 to
the sheer lunacy of the poll tax … that daft idea."—[Official Report, 1 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 316.]
I also remind him that his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) said in a debate in the House that the poll tax was
regressive by … nature … a legal nightmare."—[Official Report, 29 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 968.]
Surely his hon. Friends must be right. However the Government wrap up the poll tax and whatever sweeteners they give, the right hon. Gentleman must understand that the people of Wales have rejected and will reject the poll tax. To put it on the record, Labour will abolish the poll tax. Today's statements will not safeguard the parliamentary skins of the Secretary of State's hon. Friends behind him.

Mr. Hunt: I counted altogether nine specific questions, which I shall attempt to answer. There was also a 10th question which the hon. Gentleman did not ask, but which I shall presume that he asked. I shall answer it later.
The hon. Gentleman's first question was why the statement was so late. In the hon. Gentleman's words, "Why have the sweeteners been delayed?" That is not a matter for me, as you know, Mr. Speaker. I was anxious to make the statement as soon as possible and my hon. Friends will realise why. It is a good and positive statement for Wales.
The hon. Gentleman's second question was, "Is the provision for inflation defective?" The answer is no. If the hon. Gentleman looks again at the settlement he may find that his eye skipped the percentage increase in aggregate external finance. The figure was 11·2 per cent. That is 11·2 per cent. more external money going into local authorities in 1991–92 than in 1990–91.
The hon. Gentleman's third question was about defective provision for counties in several respects. I closely consult the Assembly of Welsh Counties. If the hon. Gentleman discusses the settlement with that organisation, I hope that he will find that it too regards the settlement as realistic.
The hon. Gentleman's fourth question was on transitional relief. I am not sure whether he realised that my announcement increased the amount of funds already available for transitional relief next year by 50 per cent. We believe that that is the best use of available resources. This year, 750,000 people in Wales will benefit, whereas only 200,000 at most would have benefited if the English scheme applied to Wales. If the hon. Gentleman consults again the assembly and the Council of Welsh Districts, he will find that they agree with me that the transitional relief scheme is the best arrangement and that the associations have agreed it. I should have thought that the best relief for all Wales is the news this afternoon that the actual community charge of £232 will fall to £228 if councils spend in line with my assumptions.
The fifth question was also on transitional relief. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we had extended the scheme to 1994–95 to take it past the next general election. I have news for the hon. Gentleman. I do not know when the election will be but I certainly intend to be Secretary of State for Wales in 1994–95.
The hon. Gentleman's sixth question was on care in the community. By setting a higher average community charge than was necessary this year, local authorities placed an additional burden of some £100 million on charge payers. It would be wrong in Wales as elsewhere to expose charge payers to the possibility of immediate further burdens where they could be avoided.
Our experience under the all-Wales mental handicap and mental illness strategy shows that fundamental changes in the delivery of services cannot possibly be achieved overnight. They take years of careful planning and development. The phased programme of implementation that we now propose will enable all involved to work together to do just that for the many elderly people, those with physical and sensory disability and others in need of social care. Our track record shows that no one should have any doubt about our commitment to making a success of the changes proposed in the White Paper.
The hon. Gentleman's seventh point was that treasurers are under pressure because of the failure to pay the community charge. I do not know what the hon.


Gentleman gets up to. I have here the statistics that have been published. The rate of non-payment in Nottingham is 30 per cent., in Birmingham it is 35 per cent. and in Bath it is 39 per cent. In Cardiff, our largest authority, the rate of non-payment is under 10 per cent. I have every confidence that that percentage will diminish still further and that the vast majority of Welsh charge payers are law-abiding and will pay their community charge.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about local management of schools and the counties. I assure him that we took all that into account before I announced the settlement. The hon. Gentleman's ninth question was about extra money for extra duties. All those were carefully taken into account before the announcement today.
Finally, I come to the question that the hon. Gentleman did not ask. It was—[Interruption.] He made a statement towards the end of his speech, that his party would seek to abolish the community charge. For many years, the Labour party tried to find an alternative to the unjust and inequitable domestic rates system. We now know the result of their efforts. The Labour party will go back to the unjust, unfair, domestic rating system. It published a policy document called "Looking to the Future." This is not just "Back to the Future" but backwards into the past.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, which is in line with the statement for England and Wales made last week? It will help the community charge payers. I am a firm supporter of the principle that everyone who enjoys local services and has a vote should make a contribution towards the services.
Will my right hon. Friend consider carefully the position of constituents who run bed-and-breakfast accommodation and those who have second homes, such as clergy and teachers who teach in other places? They are an important group who are made to pay two standard community charges, and the matter must be dealt with quickly. Will he confirm that it was only at the last election that the Labour party promised to abolish the rates, yet three years later it proposes to return to the same unfair rating system which three years ago it claimed could not be amended as it suggested?

Mr. Hunt: I recognise that my hon. Friend has strong views to express on the system for dealing with bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I should like to discuss that area of policy with him again, because I have an open mind on what we should do.
My hon. Friend is right about the Labour party. At the last election, it promised to abolish the domestic rating system.

Mr. Donald Coleman: The former Member for Vale of Glamorgan was fighting a seat at the general election.

Mr. Hunt: I remember. The hon. Gentleman was not fighting to retain his seat at the last general election.
I recall vividly that, halfway through the election campaign, the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) announced that the Labour party intended to introduce capital value rates. Will the hon. Gentleman think through the consequences of his earlier remarks? I understand that Labour has not yet worked out the details. Instead of doing so, will it please drop the whole idea of reverting to such an unjust system?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that a number of hon. Members have been waiting patiently for the debate on the summer Adjournment motion, so I ask hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies to ask single questions. There will be other opportunities to deal with this matter.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating Montgomeryshire district council on keeping its poll tax below the average level hoped for for last year? Will he be the first Minister for many years to tell the House that he supports the excellence of village schools in rural Wales, and will he express the hope that the settlement will assist in their retention?
If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to be Secretary of State for Wales in 1994–95, will he take up the challenge of giving up his stockbroker Cheshire seat and fighting a seat in Wales at the next general election?
Will the Secretary of State explain why it was decided by the Government's business managers to sneak the statement through on the first Monday of the Royal Welsh show, which is Wales's premier agricultural event, when he knows perfectly well that many hon. Members with a deep interest in agriculture, who knew nothing of the imminence of the statement, could not be present in the House today?

Mr. Hunt: Unfortunately, the hon. and learned Gentleman asked five questions. In reply to the last of them, I may say that I wanted to make the statement at the earliest possible opportunity, but the timing of such statements is never a matter for the Secretary of State. I wanted to make it as soon as I could. If I am allowed to visit the Royal Welsh show tomorrow, I look forward to meeting the hon. and learned Gentleman there. May I ask him to get his geography right? My seat is in Merseyside, and I am proud to represent a Merseyside constituency. Finally, without singling out any particular county council, I acknowledge—

Mr. John P. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question of the late announcement of the statement has twice been raised. News of it appeared on the annunciator at only 2 o'clock this afternoon. The Leader of the House has left his place, but are we to receive an explanation of why the statement was announced so late?

Mr. Hunt: I will not be drawn into commenting on a specific council at this stage, but I take this opportunity to congratulate councils throughout Wales, and in particular the officials most concerned with the introduction of the new system, on the quality of their professional management, which allowed the system to be introduced so successfully.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an excellent statement, which means that there is no justification for an increase in the average community charge in Wales next year. I urge my hon. Friend to spell it out to local councils, particularly those in Cardiff and South Glamorgan, that he will not hesitate to use his charge-capping powers, and on what terms he will use them. I suggest that he should consider capping any council that increases its community charge by more than


the rate of inflation, provided that that increase is proportionately reduced by every 1 per cent. that the council's community charge has already exceeded this year's standard spending assessment.

Mr. Hunt: I much appreciate my hon. Friend's warm words of welcome, given his distinguished career in local government. I do not want to be drawn on the specific criteria for capping, and it would be wrong for me to do so. I hope that it will not be necessary to use capping powers, although I shall not hestiate to do so if necessary.

Mr. Donald Colman: I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman mention inflation in his statement—but it is rising, and additional burdens are being placed on local authorities, particularly in respect of education. How will the right hon. Gentleman's statement ensure the survival of small schools—or is he happy to see them closed?

Mr. Hunt: I believe that the settlement is fair and realistic, and that it will allow the specific policies decided by local authorities in conjunction with the Welsh Office in line with the guidance to be fulfilled. As to inflation, I have announced a settlement tha gives an 8 per cent. increase in spending—which is higher than the figure announced for England last Thursday. The external finance that I have also announced will increase by 11·2 per cent.—a substantial rise, and more than enough to cope with any increased spending demands.

Mr. Keith Raffan: I join in the congratulations to my right hon. Friend on attaining a very generous settlement and continuing the very strong record of both his Conservative predecessors—in sharp contrast to the record of the Labour party and former Labour Secretaries of State for Wales. Whilst I welcome the extension of the transitional relief system, is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern in my constituency and others that Wales has a different and, in my view, less well targeted transitional relief system? Will he consider issuing a consultative paper, particularly in the light of the obvious differences in view between Labour Members and Labour councils in Wales?

Mr. Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words of welcome, which I much appreciate. As he will know, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) —to whom I pay particular tribute—introduced a well targeted relief scheme that offers assistance to residents in areas where domestic rates bills were low, and who would otherwise be confronted by significant increases in their local tax liability. The scheme is simple to administer an incurs no additional administrative costs. As I said earlier, Welsh associations agree that it offers the best arrangement.

Mr. Ray Powell: We want an explanation of why we were not made aware on Thursday, or as late as Friday, that a statement was to be made today by the Welsh Office concerning poll tax in Wales. I do not know where the Secretary of State gets his information about the views of county or district authorities. I visit most areas of Wales and talk to county council and district council members—but none of them, whatever their political persuasion, shares the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon.
The Secretary of State can tinker as much as he likes with the poll tax in Wales, but he will not convince the electorate there of its worth, whether he waits until 1991 or 1992. We would like to know where the Secretary of State obtained the information on which he based parts of his statement and why we were not informed on Friday that a statement was to be made.
Paragraph 2 of the consultation document said that the Secretary of State would review the operation of the poll tax—one must bear in mind the fact that he was then the Minister responsible for winding up the poll tax debate—and identify any anomalies that needed to be addressed. I was convinced that, when the right hon. Gentleman wound up that debate, he knew of all the anomalies, but he said that there were none. We were very disturbed to hear this afternoon's statement.

Mr. Hunt: I am almost reluctant to reveal to the House that I regard the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) as an old friend—(Hors. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] That remark does not need to be withdrawn. I have genuine affection for the hon. Gentleman, but he has been unfair. He was unfair to blame me for the timing of the statement, when, with his tremendous experience of the House, he knows that that matter is not for the Secretary of State. I wanted to make the statement at the earliest opportunity.
I was criticised by some for failing to get in ahead of the Scots, but I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will not be catching your eye today, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether or not that is a matter for plaudit, because I have nothing to do with the timing of statements. 1 had nothing to do with the timing of these statements.
As regards the remainder of what the hon. Gentleman stated, for consultation I rely on talking to the elected representatives of the Assembly of Welsh Counties and the Council of Welsh Districts, and I meet them regularly. I met them on 4 July and I am meeting them again today. Of course, local authorities would have liked more money, but when he consults the representatives, I think that they will agree that this is a reasonable and realistic settlement. On his questions about what we might do to alter the system, I have issued a consultation paper. Responses should be in by 28 September, and I look forward to receiving representations from the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell).

Mr. Donald Anderson: The Minister should know that this exercise will be seen in Wales as effectively scapegoating our local authorities and using unreal fairy-tale figures. Is it not clear that this is trying to sugar a bitter pill until after the next election? Can the Minister confirm that the figures that he has given the House today are based on the assumption of a 100 per cent. payment by all poll tax payers in Wales and that even with the best will in the world, there will not be a 100 per cent. payment, so Welsh poll tax payers will have to pay more?

Mr. Hunt: The bitter pill is nothing to do with the community charge—it is the pill that the electorate have already spat out by getting rid of the unjust, inequitable, domestic rating system. The hon. Gentleman and his party are now seeking to reintroduce it without any of the basic questions being answered—such as, is it to be reintroduced


with the old values of 1973, which is really "Barry in Wonderland"? How on earth can anyone reach any assessment based on 1973 values?
Also, it is not yet decided who will be liable to pay. Apparently there is to be a meeting at each property to decide who should be nominated to pay the new, old-fashioned domestic rates bill. That is the bitter pill, and the sooner the hon. Gentleman spits that one out, the better it will be for the Welsh electorate.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: How is the momentum for the demonstration projects that have been set up using elderly initiative finance—such as the west Glamorgan staying-at-home initiative which is being used in Neath and Morriston—to be extended throughout Wales, when the Government have postponed their community care proposals?

Mr. Hunt: I dealt with some of that in my earlier response, but let me continue because I realise that the hon. Gentleman is not only in a prestigious position as Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, but that, as a constituency Member of Parliament, he has always paid attention to this matter in the past.
Elderly people have benefited from a massive real-terms increase in expenditure on health and social services. In addition, the Welsh Office provides substantial funding to promote best practice under the elderly initiative, and 60 projects have been approved for support for up to five years at a total annual cost of more than £2 million. We are not attempting a radical reshaping of patterns of services, so there is no justification for an all-Wales strategy of the sort that exists for mental illness and mental handicap services, but we recognise the need to develop more flexible forms of domiciliary care and to provide alternatives to residential care where possible; the steady implementation of the White Paper changes will do that.
Also, the carefully targeted new grant schemes will replace the current disparate sources of Welsh Office support, such as urban aid joint finance and the elderly initiative, and I think that that is generally welcomed. The level of resources for 1991–92 will be announced in the autumn.

Mr. Allan Rogers: May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) in saying that the statement is most unworthy and a shameful attack on local government in Wales? The Minister came to his present post after being Minister for the poll tax for Great Britain, and he is already known in the south Wales valleys as "Dai Poll Tax". When he attacks local government, he is attacking not its buildings and fabric but its services. The real sufferers as a result are not vague councils—I use that as a general term—but the people they serve: the elderly, the sick, children in schools, those people who are vulnerable and rely upon local authority services.
The settlement is hardly in line with inflation, and certainly does not take into account the year-on-year, end-on responsibilities of local authorities as any service or function develops. Perhaps it would be unusual for a Secretary of State of any party, but instead of his having a flat rate or poll tax capping facility this year, would he study more seriously local authorities and the functions that they provide and say that, if a local authority cannot provide the services that are needed, central Government will function-cap them rather than rate-cap them.

Mr. Hunt: I am quite willing to debate at length with the hon. Gentleman the principle of function capping and charge capping but, at the moment, I am minded to continue with my existing policy, and I am not persuaded by his arguments.
As for the poor, the elderly and those who need benefit, the latest figures, which I have here, from the Department of Social Security state that charge payers in Wales who are expected to receive community charge benefit will total 550,000, of whom 320,000 will qualify for the maximum reduction of 80 per cent. So we concentrate help where, it is most needed. As regards services, if the hon. Gentleman will consult the Assembly of Welsh Counties and with the Council of Welsh Districts, he will find that they believe this to be a realistic settlement—although, of course, they would have wanted more.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does the Secretary of State accept that nothing that he has said this afternoon tackles the basic problem of the poll tax—the fact that it is not linked to the ability to pay? Will he accept that tens of thousands of people in each of our constituencies are on low incomes, but have to pay the full poll tax and that they will join us in throwing out the Government at the next election?

Mr. Hunt: The present rates at which community charge benefit is payable, especially bearing in mind the enhanced rate for disabled people, are the right level. That is why the figures that I have given are so sizeable when one considers the number of people who will qualify and receive community charge benefit.

Mr. John P. Smith: Has the Secretary of State considered the impact of this afternoon's statement on the community councils in Wales? We have an anomaly in Wales, as community councils, as a direct result of the poll tax, can vote themselves out of existence—two community councils have already gone. Surely that was never the intention of the poll tax in the first place. What will the Secretary of State do about it in the future?

Mr. Hunt: I do not think that a democrat should protest about the effects of democracy.

Mr. Paul Flynn: The Minister said, quite fairly, that new policies require years of careful planning to put into place. Does he not agree that the new policies that are essential to deal with the environmental challenges of the next few years and of the next century need a great deal of planning to put into place, and that local authorities are in the front line of all those battles? In the Newport area, there is a need to protect against the effects of global warming by putting in the groundwork on sea defences, to look for new ways to recycle materials which were previously thought of as waste, and to look for new solutions to the energy crisis.
Not only does the settlement, allowing for the gearing effect when it is translated into poll tax charges, not take account of legislation that is in place, but it is no foundation for the challenges of the next decade. Is it not the old story of the Government producing strong words but lame action?

Mr. Hunt: No, I do not think it is. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the environmental challenge for us all is to move into the next century with a better environment and a better quality of life in Wales. I agree 100 per cent. with


the hon. Gentleman about that. However, I disagree with him about the consequences for local authorities of those costs. I believe that the settlement more than takes into account those additional burdens.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement about poll tax concessions to the owners of small bed-and-breakfast establishments. They will be very useful for various Conservative Back Benchers who will lose their seats at the next election.
What exactly will be the position of the disabled in Wales next year? The Secretary of State will remember that, before he became "Dai Poll Tax," he was "David Poll Tax." When he dealt with the matter in England he introduced transitional relief for the disabled. They paid virtually no rates before the poll tax was introduced. Wales has not been granted such a concession.
Is the Secretary of State saying that the position of the disabled will remain as difficult in Wales as it was before? Does he think that it is acceptable that the disabled in Wales should get no relief from the poll tax when they know that the disabled in England are getting such relief and that it came from this Minister?

Mr. Hunt: I have always found it difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman's sense of humour, and I find it difficult to follow now, particularly on his first point. I did not understand what he was trying to say, but as he welcomed my announcement I welcome his welcome. If he has any particular views, other than wit and humour, on the whole area of bed and breakfast, I shall be delighted to hear from him.
The disabled will receive, as they do now, an enhanced rate of community charge benefit, but the greatest relief for everybody in Wales will be the news this afternoon that community charge levels in Wales need not rise next year. That will be a great relief to a lot of people. It is good news for Wales.

Mr. Paul Murphy: Does the Secretary of State accept that the poll tax is almost universally detested in Wales? Every single test of opinion in the Principality has shown that it is the most deeply unpopular tax ever faced by our people. Will he therefore be prepared to hold a referendum in the Principality and ask the electorate whether they would prefer the Labour party's new fair rating system or the poll tax? Can he not see that that hatred is reflected in the hundreds of thousands of Welsh men and women who have yet to pay the tax? In Gwent alone, more than 80,000 people have still not paid the poll tax. Has the Secretary of State not been told that the business rate especially has not been paid in Wales? In my authority 43 per cent. have not yet paid the business rate.
Does the Secretary of State still believe that local authority borrowing is bad? If he does, how does he square that view with the fact that all Welsh councils have been forced to borrow because of non-payment? Will he do something for our poll tax payers who will have to face that unnecessary burden?
Finally, does not the Secretary of State understand that no amount of clever tinkering and tampering with the poll tax will fundamentally alter the warped and absurd nature of the tax and that it will not save the few Conservative Members of Parliament who still remain in the Principality?

Mr. Hunt: I do not intend to rewrite the hon. Gentleman's brief, from which he has just read so clearly. I have not yet seen details of the Labour party's new fair rating system. The only Labour alternative that I have seen details of—I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is here—[HON. MEMBERS:"Hon."] Yes, the hon. Member for Copeland; it is just that I have high respect for him. I remember the hon. Gentleman standing up at a press conference early in 1988 and announcing Labour's alternative to the community charge. It was capital value rates. I remember it clearly. I read again just a few moments ago the detailed press release that he issued. I do not know what is going on on the other side. All I know is that the Opposition keep changing their views. When the electorate see the Labour party's proposals, I believe that they will turn and run. Nobody wishes to go back to the past.
The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) is also confused. His hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) began by accusing me of putting sweeteners before the electorate, of seeming to bribe the electorate, but other Opposition Members have got up and said that it was too miserly a settlement. I think that they had better go away and think out their alternative again. They ought also to think out their approach and welcome the settlement, because it is good news for Wales.

Mr. Barry Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has already had a long bite.

Mr. Jones: I shall be very brief, Sir. As the Leader of the House is in his place and as the Secretary of State for Wales gave no answer to our rightful question as to why the declaration that a statement would be made today was made so late, may we ask you to ensure that the Leader of the House now comes to the Dispatch Box to tell us why?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the Government and the usual channels.

Mr. Rogers: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of order; it is not a matter for me. The usual channels decide these matters.

Mr. Rogers: It is a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought that everything that went on in this Chamber was part of your business and under your control.

Mr. Speaker: It is a great myth, widely believed.

Mr. Rogers: There are certain conventions that you exhort hon. Members to keep to in the House. The Secretary of State said that he did not know that he would be making the statement until 2 o'clock and that it was not his business when a statement was to be made. If it is not his business, is it your business, Mr. Speaker, or is it the business of the Leader of the House?

Mr. Speaker: One thing is quite certain—that it is not my business. The Government, not the Chair, decide when statements are to be made. I grant private notice question applications and occasionally Standing Order No. 20 applications for debates, but I do not decide when statements are to be made.

Mr. Anderson: On that point, Mr. Speaker, surely that question ought properly to be decided between the usual


channels. Is it not clear that on this occasion the usual channels were blocked? If I may mix my metaphors, if the usual channels are blocked can you not be an umpire, or a stop of last resort?

Mr. Morgan: Or a plumber.

Mr. Anderson: Yes, or a plumber. May we therefore call on your services as a plumber extraordinaire to ensure that at least some courtesy is extended to the House now that the person with whom the buck stops, the Leader of the House, is in his seat? He could prevent any further problems from arising by letting us into his confidence as to why it was only at 2 o'clock today that we were told that there would be a statement. Is it not a discourtesy to the House? Will the Leader of the House not answer that question in his capacity as plumber extraordinaire?

Mr. Speaker: I shall plumb this matter during the summer recess. I hope that, when we resume in the autumn, there will be no repetition of this kind of thing.

Mr. Coleman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. I am on my feet.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill (Adjournment Debates)

Mr. Speaker: Before we come on to the motion for the summer Adjournment, I have a short statement to make on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill topics which will follow the passing of the Bill.
As can be seen from the Order Paper, the second debate on crime figures was to have been initiated by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Carr) who, sadly, died suddenly at the weekend. The practice of the House is that particular topics are the property of the Member concerned, and therefore, if a Member is not present, the topic lapses.
Exceptionally, on this occasion, since the hon. Member died over the weekend, and since eight other hon. Members had applied for a debate on the same subject, I have decided that a supplementary ballot should be held among those Members, and the debate will now be initiated by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer).
This decision is not to be regarded as a precedent, and it remains the rule that substitution for a Member who cannot be present to initiate such a debate is not permissible.

Adjournment (Summer)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House, at its rising on Thursday 26th July, do adjourn until Monday 15th October.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Mr. John Biffen: I am happy to support the motion in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. I am glad to have this opportunity to take the Chamber from the turbulence and controversy of the community charge in Wales to a more measured topic—the future of Fenns, Whixall and Bettisfield mosses. They are lowland raised bogs which many people, particularly the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), will know are ecological treasure stores and very much part of our environmental heritage.
The Nature Conservancy Council estimates that 84 per cent. of lowland raised bogs have disappeared since 1850 on account of either afforestation, agricultural reclamation or peat cutting. That underlines the importance of the mosses at Fenns, Whixall and Bettisfield which lie predominantly in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), although the Whixall moss area falls entirely within my constituency.
The hon. Member for Wrexham told me that he, like me, takes a great interest in the future management of the mosses. He hopes that a public purchase can be arranged and has written to the Welsh Office about it. He takes that view because, although the mosses are already sites of special scientific interest, covering almost 1,700 acres, by long tradition they have been subject to peat extraction in the context of established, unconditional planning permission. Against that background, anxiety about future developments has spread much further than the immediate locality.
Croxdens Horticulture Ltd., a subsiduary of the Lands Improvement group, has purchased the freehold of Whixall moss and the lease for Fenns moss. It is said that it has plans to expand peat extraction from 15,000 to 60,000 tonnes per annum, and many conservation organisations have made representations. I see that the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) is in his place on the Opposition Front Bench. I know that he, like me, has received letters on the subject, particularly from the Shropshire Wildlife Trust.
There is a case to be made for the continued working of the mosses. The question at issue is whether that can be done in a way that will secure and protect the environmental heritage. During the weekend I was visited by Mr. R. K. Davies of Whixall, who works on the mosses and is involved with, and an authority on, peat cutting. He assures me that, according to someone who is employed in the area, the present rate of extraction is not detrimental and is less than it was a generation ago. I recognise the integrity of those comments, but there is considerable anxiety about how the present working of the mosses can proceed.
Both Clwyd and Shropshire county councils feel that there should be a conservation management contract so that whoever works the mosses does so in a way that will preserve what is becoming a unique area of raised bog marshland. It is hardly surprising that the Nature Conservancy Council has become the focal point of environmental interest in the subject. It is currently talking


to Croxdens with a view to securing an agreement to enable the management of work on the mosses to be consistent with preserving the ecology.
I raise the subject on the Adjournment debate because it lends itself to a short but comprehensive presentation. There are clearly financial implications in any deal that might be done by the Nature Conservancy Council and the Department of the Environment. It is important that whatever deal is in prospect can be concluded during the Nature Conservancy Council's current financial year. I shall not press for more details. I merely ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House to convey to the Secretary of State for the Environment my anxiety, which is widely shared in the House, that adequate funds should be available to the Nature Conservancy Council so that the future of the mosses can be secured, not only for the ecological treasure that they represent, but to ensure realistic peat working that will provide continuing livelihood for a community which, for centuries, has lived off the mosses.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Of course the House should adjourn, but I should like to raise a constituency matter that reached the newspaper headlines today and yesterday about an acid house party in my constituency at which 836 people were arrested. The basic responsibility for policing rests with the West Yorkshire police authority. I wish to raise the subject because during the recess there is every chance that there may be another such party in my constituency—or so I hear. There are other such parties in different parts of the country, and they pose a growing problem of law and order. I hope that in the next two or three months the Home Office will keep an eye on the problem and report back to the House on a number of questions that I shall put in my brief speech.
I shall describe the scale of what happened on Saturday night. About 836 people were arrested, making it about the third largest mass arrest since the 1960s, not just among acid house parties, but other street demonstrations that have taken place in the past 30 years. According to the "Guinness Book of Records", the greatest number of mass arrests was in 1961 when 1,314 demonstrators supporting unilateral nuclear disarmament were arrested in London for obstructing highways leading to Parliament square.
Saturday's incident involved £2,000 worth of drugs, including LSD, amphetamines and cannabis. I was told —we shall have to see what charges are eventually brought —that crack was also being used. The development of the use of crack at such parties is dangerous because we seem to be moving towards what is happening in the United States. Several police officers were injured, and three needed hospital treatment.
The police were good enough to keep me informed yesterday. They were alerted by a security guard at premises near Gelderd road, Gildersome. The warehouse where the party took place was only 200 yards from the M62. Everyone is talking about the value of the M62 in allowing free movement between Hull and Liverpool on the M6 and M1. What is happening—I should like to know more about this by the time we return from the recess—is that the M62 is being used by the parties'

organisers to move people swiftly from one part of the country to another. There were people in Gildersome on Saturday night from as far afield as Glasgow.
The police were alerted and prevented up to 1,000 other youngsters from attending the event, for which tickets were priced at £6. The building was raided after 5 am and arrests were made for conduct liable to cause a breach of the peace and suspicion of causing criminal damage. I have been advised that I should see the scale of the damage wrought that night. People were also charged with drugs offences. Those arrested were detained in about 30 police stations throughout west Yorkshire. There have been complaints by people who were arrested and those who were prevented from coming in that the police mishandled them. If so, there is a procedure to deal with that.
People living in College road in Gildersome were awake all night from 1.30 am to well after 6 am. It is a surburban area which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, know well because you were born and bred nearby. It is a good area, yet suddenly people arrived, there was noise all night, with car doors banging, and I imagine that local people were among those who contacted the police and caused the first investigations. We need to know more, because these parties will be held not only in Morley and Leeds, South —the fact that such a party was held in Morley could not be a bigger surprise—but in other places.
I have gone no deeper than researching newspapers, but we must find out who is behind the organisation of these parties. Who is clever enough to arrange a meeting at a service station on the M62? Who makes the announcements beforehand?

Mr. Bob Cryer: Mr. Big.

Mr. Rees: Mr. Big. I will come to that point; it is a good phrase.
One of the articles says that things were quiet during the World Cup, but since that time—

Mr. Denis Howell: What?

Mr. Rees: That is what it says. I do not want to upset my right hon. Friend. I simply said that people were watching the programme on television and moved from one sort of—no, I will not go on to that.

Mr. Howell: I am hoping to do so later.

Mr. Rees: An article in, I think, The Independent says:
It's an underground club network. The organisers tip off a couple of DJs on a Saturday night. There's no flyers"—
in other words, no notices—
one car sounds its horn and sets off, and a huge convoy follows.
I gather that these are held throughout the north of England. A pay party intelligence unit—I hope that the Leader of the House will contact the Home Office on this important point—based in Kent pools police information on illegal parties around the country and is aware of the scale of the problem. When Manchester police cracked down on the problem in Blackburn, parties sprang up in Merseyside and West Yorkshire. I am glad that West Yorkshire police are taking steps to deal with the problem, but when parties are squeezed out they go elsewhere. This problem must be dealt with nationally.
Where do the drugs come from? If crack is involved, what do the police know about it? I have no illusions: I strongly believe that soft drugs lead to hard drugs and when I was Home Secretary I made that abundantly clear.


There is a group of people who say that soft drugs like nicotine and so on are okay. In a sense, I understand that, but experience of the United States shows that soft drugs lead to hard drugs, and there are the first signs of crack being used here. Are the police fully aware of the new legislation that came into force on 13 July as a result of a private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) and supported by the Government?
What about fire precautions? Fire precautions are taken in places of entertainment, but the places where these parties are held are broken into. How on earth they know where the electric points are, I do not know. These parties pose great hazards and it is my responsibility to use this debate to say on behalf of my constituents in Morley that they do not want this to happen again. We also want to know more about them, because they will be held in other parts of the country. It is a nasty development.
One sees in the newspapers comments such as "We were only setting out to enjoy ourselves." I say to them, "Enjoy yourself, and in ways that I would find difficult to accept," but these parties, which are occurring throughout the north of England, must be stopped. On behalf of my constituents, I want to ensure that it does not happen again in Morley and Leeds, South.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I initiated a debate on 23 May which highlighted the importance of the channel tunnel to north-west England. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport made a helpful and useful speech. He promised to come up to the north-west and speak to interested parties about the importance of the channel tunnel to the north-west. I am glad to say that his offer was received with alacrity and that on 5 September he will be meeting members of the north-west channel tunnel group and other interested parties. We in the north-west are grateful for his interest, but I should like to take this opportunity to underline some of our concerns about the channel tunnel.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House need not be told that the north-west is a great industrial area and that 70 per cent. of our overseas trade is with mainland Europe, which explains why we believe that the tunnel is of such importance to our region. We already know that the single market will come into effect in 1992 and that the channel tunnel will open in 1993. Hon. Members who represent north-west constituencies are anxious to ensure that the north-west is in the best possible position to take advantage of the enormous opportunities that will open up in the 1990s.
We desperately need improvements to our transport infrastructure. I have drawn attention to the overcrowded motorways and the time that it takes to get from London to the north-west. Those delays are caused not so much by accidents and roadworks, although there always seem to be roadworks on the M1 and M6, but by the sheer number of vehicles on the roads. Therefore, I should have thought that it makes much sense to move more traffic from the roads on to railways. The more freight that we can move from road to railways the less traffic we shall have on our roads; and the better the railway system, the more likely it is that freight will use it.
We in the north-west feel that we are the poor relations of the north-east in terms of rail links. I was born in the

north-east and lived on Tyneside for more than 30 years. In those days, I thought that it was a long journey by train from Newcastle to London and that the north-west did much better in getting its share of benefits, but times seem to have changed. Perhaps it is a jinx that as I have moved to the north-west the north-east is in the same position. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is in the same position. We were both born in the north-east, but represent north-west constituencies. Perhaps he is as much of a jinx as I am.
Today, it takes the same time to travel by train from Preston to London as from Newcastle to London, yet the distance from Newcastle to London is considerably more. Therefore, is it any wonder that we feel that our rail links have been neglected and that we are anxious for that to be corrected? With better railway links to the north-west, we could look forward to greater prosperity.
As I am dealing with transport and the north-west, I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House would be disappointed if I did not mention Manchester airport. Since he became Leader of the House, whenever we have had one of these debates and he has heard my name called he has immediately put "Manchester airport" on the top of his writing pad. I keep mentioning it because it is the largest single employer in my constituency.
I am delighted to say that, on Friday 29 June, the bilateral agreement was signed providing two new route opportunities for United States airlines to serve Manchester airport. I am told that there are three other strong contenders—United airlines, which wants to fly from Washington to Manchester, Northwest Orient Airlines, which wants to fly from Detroit to Manchester, and Delta Airlines which wants to fly from Atlanta to Manchester. Interest has been shown by Continental Airlines, which would like to fly from Los Angeles to Manchester and Pan Am and American Airlines are interested in the New York to Manchester route. We must wait for the United States Department of Transport to decide which of the airlines should be given the necessary licence, and we hope that we shall have a start date next spring.
The other good news was that the temporary licence held by American Airlines has now been confirmed as a permanent fixture, covering flights between Chicago and Manchester. For years, I have advocated more transatlantic flights from Manchester airport. I could never understand why passengers from the north had to take the shuttle to Heathrow and get on an aeroplane at Heathrow to fly to various cities in the United States. This decision will mean that thousands of travellers from the north will be able to fly direct to the United States, which is a good thing. I am particularly delighted at this decision because, as the chairman of Manchester airport said at the time, it will bring more industry and jobs into the region and will help the growth of the airport as a business.
Amid all this euphoria, praise must be given to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen may cackle, but it is the truth. Authorities at Manchester airport, which is not controlled by the Conservative party, have said how grateful they are to my right hon. Friend for the part that he played in negotiations. He intervened directly and the fact that the negotiations were brought to a successful


conclusion was due in no small measure to his work. Ministers seem to get a lot of brickbats; it is rather nice if occasionally one can get a bouquet.
The other issue that I wish to raise is a very human one. At a recent advice bureau, I had visits from three constituents, all of whom were epileptics and were finding difficulty in getting employment. Epilepsy affects at least one in 200 people, and the majority of people with it are successfully employed in many different types of work. To have three people, each with a different case, come to see me independently, without collusion, on the same day, made me wonder whether enough is being done to help.
The main legislation for the employment of disabled people consists of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts 1944 and 1958. The aim was to assist people whose disabilities prevented them from obtaining employment suited to their skills. The Acts provided for the registration of disabled people and imposed a quota on employers with 20 or more workers to give employment to registered people up to a quota—a proportion of their total staff. I am told that in this country the quota is 3 per cent. In Germany, it is 6 per cent., in France it will be 6 per cent. and Italy is reorganising its 15 per cent. quota which has been found to be counter-productive, as firms know that it cannot be fulfilled. In other words, we are lagging behind our Community partners.
Our present system does not seem to be working properly, because the number on the disabled register has dropped so low. I am told that there are three reasons: first, the lack of apparent benefits in joining the register; secondly, the stigma that is often associated with being on the register; and, thirdly, the negative effects that it can have on a job application. For people with epilepsy, whose difficulty is in the main hidden, registering for this employment register through the disablement resettlement officer based at the local jobcentre has always been difficult.
The type, severity and number of epileptic attacks experienced by each individual can vary from no seizures at all—being fully controlled by anti-epileptic drugs—through to a number of seizures each day, with sudden loss of consciousness. It is not surprising that the former category would not wish to be registered as disabled while the latter, even if registered, would have a poor chance of getting employment. I am told that about 20,000 disabled people in the United Kingdom were found employment within the sheltered placement schemes, sheltered workshops and Remploy during 1989. All these employees are expected to produce work output of at least one third of that expected from a non-disabled worker in an equivalent job. All these worthy schemes were subsidised and paid for by the Treasury.
Are we doing enough to assist? It is distressing to see young people who desperately want to work and who, because they are epileptics, cannot get it. If it is distressing for people like me to witness, what must it be like for epileptics and their families? I hope that before the House rises for the summer recess, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House will talk to the responsible Minister in the hope that we can get positive action to help in such cases.

Mrs. Ray Michie (Argyle and Bute): I support the motion that the House should adjourn until 15 October, not just because I look forward to returning to Scotland, for obvious reasons, but because before the House rises we should pay attention to an important matter. It is a Scottish matter, and hon. Members may be surprised that I should raise it here when there are no other Scottish Members in the Chamber. That does not worry me, because I wish to persuade Members who represent constituencies south of the border.
During the coming months, members of the Scottish Constitutional Convention will continue to meet to conclude the first part of their work—to produce a scheme for establishing a Scottish Parliament and for establishing how Scotland should be governed. I hope that the final package will be presented to the full convention, which meets on 27 September.
The convention was set up in response to the "Claim of Right for Scotland" and at its first meeting agreed:
We do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs".
Members of the convention comprise 58 of the 72 Scottish Members of Parliament; the rest come from all walks of life in Scotland. It is unfortunate that the Scottish National party and the Conservative party refuse to join this debate, although there are members from both parties in the convention who are not officially representing their parties.
There is no dispute about the fact that Scotland is a nation, although I am aware that some people in the House regard it as a region. Until 1707, Scotland was both a nation and a state. The state was wound up by a treaty; the nation was not conquered, but it did not freely agree to the Union of Parliaments, which took place without the consent of the Scottish people. All hon. Members know that Scotland has a strong sense of cultural identity. It has its own Church, legal system and education system, but no legislature and no Government. There was never any mechanism for enforcing respect for the terms of the treaty of Union and no method of veto on legislation contrary to the interests of its people. From that day to this, Scotland has sought to re-establish its right to govern itself.
As a Liberal Democrat whose party has a long-held commitment to home rule, I say that our demand is not based on expediency or an intermittent response to bad government from Westminster by any particular party at any particular time; rather, it is securely based on the key principle that it is the sovereign right of the Scottish people to self-determination—a right which is given to all countries and which is enshrined in the United Nations charter and in the international covenant on civil and political rights.
As a new Scottish Member of Parliament, I have been shocked at the way in which Scottish legislation has been dealt with in the House. Let me give a few examples. There is no Scottish Select Committee, and the Government refuse to set one up; yet the Scottish Office is a large spending Department which gets away with exercising no kind of scrutiny. There is the sham of the Scottish Grand Committee; the humiliation of debating the old Royal high school in Edinburgh and then being sent down to London to be outvoted by Members of Parliament here; the inability of all Scottish Members to be called at Scottish Question Time; the disgraceful shambles of the


Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill; the statement on Britoil made by the Minister of State, Department of Energy last Friday—obviously to avoid questioning by Scottish Members, most of whom had returned to their constituencies; and, of course the imposition of the poll tax a year earlier than in the rest of the United Kingdom, in direct and blatant contravention of the Act of Union.
We in Scotland do not believe in the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament, but rather in the sovereignty of the people. It is on that basis that the constitutional convention operates. So much double-talk emanates from the Government. They congratulate and support the eastern European countries as they seek freedom and self-determination; and, in a speech in the House on 5 July, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—referring to the future government of that area—said:
It seems to me and my ministerial colleagues that we have a moral duty to seek to find ways of returning substantial responsibilities to politicains who are elected by the people of Northern Ireland and who will be accountable to them for their stewardship of Northern Ireland affairs."—[Official Report, 5 July 1990; Vol. 175, c. 1141–42.]
Would that the Leader of the House and the Government considered it their moral duty to acknowledge the rights of the Scottish people to the re-establishment of their own Parliament, instead of sniping from the sidelines, both here and in Scotland—ably led, I am sad to say, by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). Their threats imply, "You will be cut off without a penny if you dare to assert your rights," and we hear the nonsense that a Scottish Parliament would mean an increase in tax of 25p in the pound. Of course, the Government are careful never to reveal the contribution to the Exchequer made by Scotland.
Only the politics of a childlike mind would attempt the pathetic argument that a Scottish Parliament would tax its business community out of existence. Does that happen in similar countries such as Switzerland, Eire, Norway and Denmark—to name just a few? The Tory party should remember what it promised in the late 1960s and early 1970s and so coolly betrayed in 1979: that will not be forgotten.
The problems will not go away. I ask the Leader of the House not to be dismissive, but to listen to members of his own party. If he listened to his own Back Benchers—not the Scottish ones, but those from south of the border—I believe that he would be surprised to learn how many would like to see Scotland looking after its own affairs in a Parliament in Edinburgh. Some would want that for good democratic reasons; others, I admit, would like to see the back of us, regarding us as an irritation and a nuisance.
We are caught in a trap. Let me quote from "Claim of Right for Scotland", which puts it very clearly:
There is a profound hypocrisy in saying that the Scots should stand on their own feet while simultaneously denying them management of their own political affairs, and that denial is a clear deprivation of choice for Scots. Scots can stand on their own feet only by refusing to accept the constitution which denies them the power to do so.
The constitutional convention seeks not to sever our political links with this place, but rather to challenge its legitimacy, bring about change and give Scotland hope for the future.

Mr. Terence Higgins: I am glad to have this traditional opportunity of raising a matter of constituency interest on the motion that the House should adjourn for the summer recess. If—as appears likely—my right hon. Friend's motion is passed, I hope that Ministers and officials will investigate closely the matters that I shall bring to the attention of the House.
A matter that has been of major controversy in Worthing for many years is whether there should be a Worthing bypass. Some 10 years ago, a preferred route was announced—it was in no sense a bypass, because it went through a substantial part of the town. Although some houses on the route were bought up, I am glad to say that, in the light of representations the scheme was dropped and the houses were sold. Subsequently, the proposal has reared its ugly head again and a similar route has been announced—despite the Government's declared objective that traffic should avoid towns, and despite the fact that every other town of any size along the south coast will have a bypass.
My constituents—rightly, I believe—have protested violently about the proposal.

Mr. Cryer: Violently?

Mr. Higgins: Only in the sense that people normally protest violently in Worthing: a petition with more than 24,000 signatures constitutes violence there. Indeed, a petition of 24,000 signatures would be seen anywhere as a weighty document. There have been many public meetings, some attended by more than 850 people, saying that the town should have a bypass and not a throughpass, which is what the preferred route is.
In the light of that—and the fact that the Government went ahead and announced a preferred route—strong representations were made, not only by me but by the borough council and my constituents. I welcome the fact that, as a result, Ministers agreed that a full traffic, environmental and economic assessment should be carried out of both the preferred route and a real bypass. None the less, I must express concern at the way in which the assessment are being carried out in practice.
I believe that public confidence in the impartiality of the inquiry is being seriously undermined. A study was originally carried out by Howard Humphreys, consultants to the Department, who recommended the preferred route through the town. The borough council, being strongly opposed to that route, employed its own consultants—W. S. Atkins—who drew attention to serious deficiencies in the analysis carried out by Howard Humphreys. Despite that, the preferred route was confirmed; but, in the light of representations, the Government established a further inquiry, under the management of Acer Consultants, to appraise both routes.
The county council and the regional office of the Department have never been in favour of a bypass, despite the Government policy that I have mentioned. It was therefore with astonishment that I discovered that the official who had apparently been much involved in the Department of Transport as the project manager—and who had therefore been instrumental in recommending the preferred route—had accepted the post of technical director with Acer Consultants, which is supposed to be carrying out the impartial survey. That is extraordinary.
One of the problems that I have experienced is the fact that Ministers keep changing. I have now made representations to no fewer than 15—perhaps even more—Ministers over 10 or 12 years. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) with whom I have recently been raising this matter, is now about to be removed from the Department of Transport to become Minister with responsibility for sport. Therefore, I will have to go over the whole story again. That is why it is appropriate to raise it now.
I raised this point with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble, who wrote back a carefully worded letter which said that the individual concerned, a Mr. Rix,
has attended the initial meetings with local authorities in relation to the assessments. I can however confirm that he will not be Technical Director for this scheme and that he will have no further involvement in it.
None the less, as I understand it, he is still employed by the consultants. The Minister does not deny the fact that he moved from the Department to the consultants in the roles that I have described.
This raises some serious questions for the Department of Transport and the Minister for the Civil Service. Did the Department know that the individual concerned was going to work for the consultants on the same issues? Did it know that when the consultants were appointed as the impartial advisers? What are the civil service rules on such matters and at which level was the decision taken to employ the consultants, either with or without this individual?
It is understandable that my constituents are concerned. One of the several action groups said:
The knowledge of this information destroys any confidence this Committee has in believing that the new Consultants would be able to provide an unbiased assessment of the relative merits of alternative proposals.
The Government must do something to reassure public opinion.
The related point that I wish to raise is that of compensation for blight of houses on the "preferred" route. I welcome the statements made by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Transport and the Prime Minister that they are considering carefully what additional compensation arrangements can be made for people who are affected in this way. There are essentially two groups—those just off the preferred route and those on it.
For those who may be as little as 100 yards off the route, this is appalling. It is impossible for them to sell their houses at a reasonable price because of the uncertainty surrounding the scheme, which may eventually not go along the preferred route at all but may, as I hope, be a real bypass. Many of my constituents are frozen in that position. There is clearly a case for dealing with this. It may be that because of the present arrangements for compensation they will not even be able to put in a claim until 1997, and will therefore suffer tremendous hardship. There is no doubt that under the present arrangements for road schemes one's constituents, through no fault of their own, may be heavily penalised.
The other group are those actually on the preferred route. They may apply for purchase of the property under the blight provisions. Having said that, in a large number of cases the valuation placed on the property has not been satisfactory. I have taken them up with the Department of

Transport and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary. There are serious problems. There are also problems for those who are on the preferred route, who could apply for a blight notice but have decided that they do not want to move because nothing may happen for several years. The problem that they face is only just emerging.
When the A27 issue first arose 10 years ago there was no great problem about this. Some houses were purchased and were rented out to people in the interim. The same is happening again. However, in contrast to the position 10 years ago, I am receiving serious complaints from people who have decided to stay put. They say that the tenants who are now arriving in the rented accommodation are, in many cases, harassing them and creating disturbances of one sort or another. Some of my constituents are convinced—I do not believe it, but it is possible—that there is a deliberate policy to do that. Reports in the local press say that the Department is saying, "You will have to move in the end anyway." That is not necessarily true. There may be a bypass which goes nowhere near the preferred route.
The way in which the property is being allocated gives cause for concern not only for the reasons that I have mentioned but for the financial implications. I do not have the latest figure, but a while ago I was told that already £6·5 million of taxpayers' money had been spent buying up the houses along the route. They are being rented out at rents way below what would normally be expected for such accommodation. Many of the houses are in the £120,000 or £150,000 range and they are being rented out at what appears to be an uneconomic rent. The Public Accounts Committee and the Government should be concerned about that. Apparently, some of the houses have been allocated to a North British housing association, but on what criteria it is not made clear. That association has, in turn, allocated some of them to the local authority. The overall picture gives real cause for concern.
Similarly, the traffic survey is being carried out by the consultants, Acer, and I understand on an agency basis by the West Sussex county council. That is not something about which my constituents are happy because West Sussex county council's view against the bypass has been clear at official level for many years. The survey seems to be deficient in a number of respects.
This is a serious matter affecting my constituents, and reassurance is very much needed. The alternative routes must be appraised on a sensible basis. The Department should look seriously at the problem. If affects not only the Department of Transport but the Civil Service Department and the Treasury. If we adjourn at the end of the week, as seems likely, I hope that the Minister now responsible will look into this matter and make rapid progress sorting out the problems I have mentioned.

Mr. Denis Howell: I want to raise the case of the 240 English citizens who were disgracefully deported from Italy during the latter stages of the world cup. Most of them were perfectly innocent and many have written to me saying that they are lifelong Conservatives with unblemished records. I place much of the blame with the former Minister of Sport, who has now disappeared. I regret that he has gone, because he created such a mess and brought about such an abuse of civil liberties and, as the story unfolds, human rights, that he


should continue in office to clear it up. I regret that that is not the case. However, that does not stop me from saying a word of welcome to the new Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). I hope that he enjoys his new post.
I am not sure what the new Minister's level is to be. I hope that he will be a Minister of State. I know that we have a new Minister for the Arts and it has been the Prime Minister and the Government's practice to make the Minister for the Arts senior to the Minister of Sport. That is reflected in the subventions that arts and sport receive.
I have received a letter from a Mrs. Hitchman who was on holiday in Italy. She said:
Dear Mr. Howell,
We have just spent the last few weeks being prodded by truncheons, continually buffeted, had property confiscated, ordered by police carrying machine guns on to buses (already packed) to destinations we didn't want. We witnessed a young man being kicked and punched by police for daring to ask the directions to a station ticket office. We watched a Swedish photographer shouting 'I'm not English,' but still getting hit by truncheons.
In three sentences that illustrates the terrible abuse that occurred mainly as a result of the vainglorious rompings of the former Minister for Sport who went around Italy apparently urging the Italian authorities to believe that anyone from this country should be regarded as a potential criminal and a hooligan. That was a disgraceful abuse of his position. He did that because his Football Spectators Act 1989 has been a complete and utter failure.
In part II of that Act, which had the support of all sides of the House, the Minister promised that people with criminal records for hooliganism would not be allowed to go to Italy. We were also told that people who committed offences in Italy would be taken before the courts there, tried and banned from any future overseas activities. Neither of those things has happened and that is the cause of the former Minister for Sport's panic. His policy has totally failed.
What has happened is quite disgraceful. In Rimini on the night of 25 July there were racialist attacks by the Italian police on people simply because they were English. I could give many examples of what happened and I have details of 108 cases involving people who are going to appeal against their deportations. Hon. Members will be pleased to learn that I do not intend to quote from all the 108 appeals, but I could do so because they are graphic accounts of what happened.
I will give a brief summary of what happened. The Italy versus Uruguay match began at 9 pm on 25 July. Many English people were in Rimini and most of them were peacefully eating meals miles away from trouble. At 9 pm the manager of the Rose and Crown pub received a call from the police telling him that there would be trouble at his restaurant after the match. He did not convey that information to the people in the restaurant. He did not close his restaurant and his customers continued to eat or drink cheerfully and innocently.
Two hours later, at 11 pm, 300 or 400 Italian spectators arrived outside the pub celebrating Italy's victory. They bombarded the people inside the pub with missiles and stopped them from getting out. The Italian police arrived, but they did not arrest a single Italian supporter. Instead they fired tear gas at the English people in the restaurant. They then went on a mad round-up of anyone who was English.
In one of the letters to me I have details of five people who were having a meal in a restaurant five miles away from the trouble. The Italian police arrived and asked whether anyone present was English. Not knowing what was happening, those diners said that they were English and they were taken into custody for their own protection. They were made to sit on the floor for 18 hours, 12 hours of which were spent under the heat of the Italian sun, and they were offered only one cup of water and one stale bun. They were then deported. They were put on a plane and were not allowed to stand up while on board. They could not go to the toilet unless they were accompanied by one of the 30 Italian police who were on the plane. They were hit on the head with truncheons and were made to use the toilet with the door open in the full view of the other passengers. That is a degradation of human rights which it is the duty of this Government to tackle. However, the Government have done nothing about it.
I have spent some time analysing where the 230 people concerned were. As I have said, 108 of them have written to me. I have found that 11 of my correspondents were in the Rose and Crown where there was some trouble, although everybody has told me that it was not started by English people. Nine people were in the Talk of the Town three miles from Rimini where they were arrested. Eight were in the Lord Nelson pub two miles away and 10 were in other restaurants. Two of the people involved were in their own hotel and having supper when they were taken by the police. One was walking along the sea front and two others were three miles from Rimini. Six people have told me that they were walking alone. Two people were taken off a tram which was stopped by police who were looking for English people and two were taken off a bus. I must bring those cases to the attention of the House. That is an absolute scandal and we need to know what is going to happen as a result of that outrage.
The 230 people involved were refused access to the British consul. They were hit on the head when they tried to stand up. After sitting for 18 hours they wanted to stand to stretch their legs, but they were forbidden to do so. That is an appalling story.
It is extraordinary that all those 230 people have been served with the same deportation order which states about all those people, whether they were on buses or trams or three miles away in another restaurant or elsewhere:
after consuming alcoholic drinks in some pubs along the seaside in Rimini, went out in the streets vandalising the town centre, clearly behaving in a way totally incompatible with the situation of the Adriatic Riviera already crowded with numerous groups of Tourists.
For the overwhelming majority of those who were deported, that deportation order is an absolute lie.
As other hon. Members want to speak, I will be as brief as I can. I have invited those 108 people to come to the House tomorrow and there will be a meeting at 4 pm in the Grand Committee Room to which I invite Ministers. Ministers have written to me and have refused to believe what those innocent people have said. However, they have not met one of them, they have not written to one of them, interviewed one of them or answered letters from them. The 108 people concerned have written to their hon. Members, including many Conservative Members and to Ministers, but Ministers have abdicated their responsibilities.
We were first told that the people concerned could not return to Italy until after the world cup. We now find that


the situation is much more serious. Those people are banned for life from returning to Italy. Italian lawyers have now told us that unless they appeal by Wednesday, 30 days after they were deported, criminal charges will follow. The appeal procedure will cost them at least £150 each. I am grateful to our solicitors, and in particular to Mr. Peter Jackson of Hill, Dickinson, Davis and Cambell of Liverpool, who is co-ordinating the activities of a large number of solicitors to help all those people who want to appeal.
If those people appeal, they must by Wednesday have their appeal forms, which can only be issued in Italy, endorsed by a notary in public, who is difficult to find although we will have one available tomorrow in the Grand Committee Room. They must then go to the Foreign Office which must, under some procedure for which it is charging those people £8 each—which is a scandal into which I hope the new Minister for Sport will look—endorse the forms before submitting them to Italy, and after that the solicitor must rush the forms around on Wednesday morning and lodge them with the Italian embassy. That is the appeals procedure which those people who are completely innocent of the charges must endure.
In the face of all that, what has been the attitude of Ministers? When the former Minister for Sport was in Italy—and I was there as well—he did not meet a single football fan. He did not go to the headquarters of the Football Supporters Association, although it was trying to provide helpful advice. He did not go to the Football Association office. That was a disgraceful dereliction of duty.
Many of the people who were deported had paid £10 to join the England Football Association's supporters club. They could have used their membership cards, which the Minister said would be regarded as tokens of good order. They were totally disregarded. The Minister did nothing about ensuring that the arrangements, which he himself set up with the Football Association, were honoured in Italy. On their return, that wretched Minister promptly proceeded to libel those people. He said that they were criminally motivated.

Mr. Tom Pendry: Effluent.

Mr. Howell: I shall refer to that matter in a minute. As the Minister said that outside the House, it is actionable. One of the reasons I am sorry that he is not still in office is that I should like to see him, as the Minister with responsibility for sport, receiving a record number of writs for libel, which I hope will be the case when many of those people consult their libel lawyers. In the House, after the event, he praised the Italian police without finding out anything about the way in which the operation had been conducted, and he described those British citizens as the effluent tendency. That was a contemptible comment by somebody who made no effort whatever to talk to any of those people.
What about the attitude of the Home Office? On arrival at Gatwick, all those people were photographed. I want hon. Members, in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), a former Home Secretary, to note that that is a new development. Those people were not photographed in an ordinary way. They were asked, for example, "Are you

Jack Jones?" They said, "Yes." A door was then opened, a photograph was taken, and the door was then closed. Some did not even know that they had been photographed.
Who authorised photographs of those innocent people who had not been charged with a single offence and were deported without charge? The answer is that they were photographed at the request of the national football intelligence police unit. That is a development. We now have a national football intelligence police unit, which apparently authorises photography. When I have asked what the protection is, I have been told that it is contained in the Data Protection Act 1988. That is quite disgraceful.
The football intelligence unit did some good work. A very small number of people were causing trouble. As I said, they should never have been there in the first place, and should have been got rid of. Opposition Members do not support for one minute people who behave like hooligans or who are violent. They should be dealt with, not least for the protection of innocent people on whose behalf I speak today.
On transport, who can control the unlawful, non-humanitarian attitude of the Italian police on planes in British airspace? I am told that, under the Tokyo convention, the carrier has the duty to take action. After serious breaches of human rights? Are we to say that the Italian police who breached human rights will not receive any protest from the Home Office or from the Foreign Office and that there is no protection for a British citizen in such circumstances? That is an absolute scandal. I hope that the Minister will tell his colleagues—I know that he is not responsible—that we expect better than that.
Trying to keep my speech within manageable proportions, I now refer to the Foreign Office. I went to see the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I did not get a good reception. Frankly, I think that he was overwhelmed by my story, and he did what Ministers often do, which, in the circumstances, is to back up their friends in total ignorance. I expected better from him. His reply stated:
There was extensive fighting in the town and risk to life and property was great.
That is not so, although there was some fighting. He went on:
In the circumstances I accept they had no option"—
the Italian police, that is—
but to act quickly to restore order.
Does the Minister say that a foreign Government should take action against British citizens and not against Italian citizens? That is not the standard that we expect from the Foreign Office.
The Minister went on to make the incredible statement that
it was perhaps inevitable that the conditions of detention in which the England football supporters were held should have been uncomfortable.
Uncomfortable? They were not allowed to stand up for 18 hours, were given one glass of water and were hit on the head with truncheons when they stretched their legs or wanted to go to the toilet. That is disgraceful and it totally undermines the rights of innocent citizens.
The Minister went on:
consular access is only granted after criminal charges have been brought".
In that incident in Rimini no such charges were brought. Hundreds of British citizens were degraded. If they are not to be charged with anything, they get no right of access,


contrary to the Minister's specific promise. The British ambassador and the consul did a good job. I do not criticise them. I met them, and they were working hard in Italy, but they did not see any of those people. Did they know what was going on? If so, why did they take no action? Why did they allow innocent citizens to be treated in that way?
It is a degrading and disgraceful story, and no British Minister comes out with any credit. It is my duty to raise the matter on behalf of those citizens who come from all over the country—from Colwyn Bay to Kent and from Bristol to the north-east. Those 108 letters come from every part of the country. I hope that I have effectively lodged their protest, but, more important, I hope that the Government, the new Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary will read my remarks and the 108 accounts, which are available if they want to conduct a proper inquiry and if they want to interview those concerned or send officials to interview those concerned tomorrow.
I hope that a major protest will be made by the Foreign Secretary to the Italian Government about the considerable abuse they made of their powers simply because people were English. I hope that hon. Members, whatever their views about football, the World cup or hooliganism, will agree that every Englishman has the right to be declared innocent until proven guilty in court and that he has the right to speak in his own defence. That was denied in these incidents.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: When I went on the bench about 30 years ago, I was told that one should hear both sides of a case before jumping to a conclusion. Hon. Members have heard about 108 letters. Many defendants appeared in front of me and protested their innocence. When we found the cases proved and discovered that there were previous convictions, it made us realise that we should not jump to conclusions too quickly. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) made his case, but one should not condemn anybody until one has heard both sides of the case. In the absence of my hon. Friend who is now Under-Secretary of State for Energy, it is right that I should make that point. I do not deny anything that the right hon. Gentleman said; I merely say that we have so far heard only one side of the story.

Mr. Denis Howell: As someone who respects conventions, I naturally took the opportunity early today to inform the Foreign Office, the Home Office and the Minister with responsibility for sport that I would be making my speech. I hoped that the appropriate Ministers would be present. Like the hon. Gentleman, I regret that they are not here today to say anything in their defence.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Of course, I would not expect the right hon. Gentleman to do otherwise. He is a great observer of conventions.
I wish briefly to raise three points. I shall get the controversial one over with first. I am sick and tired of Labour councils that use ratepayers' money to fight the Government in the courts. Community charge capping is the latest and, according to the media, the most expensive of such cases. It is easy for people such as Margaret Hodge

to fight the Government in the courts and posture on television, but I doubt whether she and her associates would be so willing to use their own money.
Before the House rises, I hope that the Government will take action on what I regard as a scandal. My suggestion is quite simple: if a council wants to fight Government legislation in the courts it should be bound to refer the issue to the Bar Council or to a special section of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for an opinion. If the view is that the issue is purely political or stands little chance of success, and if that council still goes ahead with that case and loses, the cost should fall on the councillors who voted to go to court. If the opinion is that there is a case and the case still fails, the cost will fall on the council's budget.
I spent 25 years in local government and at that time it was a great rarity for councils, whether Labour or Conservative, to go to the courts. It is now all too common and it is monstrous for the innocent ratepayer or community charge payer to finance such actions. I hope that the Government will take some action.

Dr. John Cunningham: I know that the hon. Gentleman thinks a lot about local government, as I do, but it is interesting that the frequency with which the courts are asked to adjudicate on Government policy has increased in the past decade. Successive Secretaries of State for the Environment in particular have regarded their Acts of Parliament as justiciable and provided within them the opportunities for councils to challenge their decisions in the courts. As councils have their own law officers, solicitors and legal advisers, who do not give advice on party political grounds, it is preposterous to suggest that some external body should have the right to determine whether a council should go to law to protect the interests of its ratepayers.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: indicated dissent.

Dr. Cunningham: I note that the hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but when the Department of the Environment was under the stewardship of the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), on several occasions the courts found that he had acted unlawfully.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: If independent legal opinion told a council that it should go to court, that would be all right. However, the hon. Gentleman must not live in a false world. When he and his father, for whom I had great respect, were in local government, the officials appointed by councils were appointed on ability, not because they were supporters of a particular political party. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the overwhelming proportion of appointments made today are based on the understanding that many of those officers are parti pris. I object to that and for that reason I do not withdraw anything I said. I believe that my proposal is the fair way in which to proceed and I believe that the ratepayers and community charge payers would welcome it.
Leaving aside such controversial issues, I welcome what the Government and members of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe have done in saying that there needs to be a democratic parliamentary input in the affairs of CSCE. In a firm communiqu? they said that it should be based on the Council of Europe. I shall not


develop that argument further because at some unearthly hour tomorrow morning my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), who is a member of the delegation I have the honour to lead, will raise the specific issue of the Council of Europe. Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that there is a way in which that political input could be extended to the first basket of CSCE—the defence basket?
My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the only organisation empowered by treaty in Europe to deal with defence is the Western European Union. The Council of Europe and the European Parliament are not so permitted. However, the growing interest of the Soviet Union in the WEU means that the element lacking in WEU and CSCE—parliamentary oversight—could be fulfilled by finding a way in which to associate the non-WEU/CSCE countries with WEU at a special assembly. After all, that is what is being suggested for the Council of Europe and I merely put to my right hon. and learned Friend that that is something worth considering.
The final topic I want to raise is a House of Commons matter. The House has changed enormously in the 20 years in which I have been a Member. More and more hon. Members work here full time and do not regard the summer recess as an opportunity to get away to their constituencies to do no work. Those of us who must be in London and in this building are surely entitled not to receive second-rate services while the House is in recess. I tabled a written question to my right hon. and learned Friend to ask him what reductions would be made to the services and facilities available to hon. Members during the summer recess in the various buildings of the House.
I received a partial answer today about the cafeterias and the dining rooms, which I accept. The answer concluded, however, by saying:
Certain other minor services and facilities, usually available to hon. Members when the House is in session, will not be available for practical or economic reasons.
That is not good enough. I have tabled a further question to my right hon. and learned Friend to discover what are those practical and economic reasons and the minor services and facilities. Those of us who work here want those "minor services and facilities" if we have to do a proper job of work.
For a Minister it is easy, as all the services remain and one has the advantage of one's office—matters proceed whether the House is in recess or not. For other hon. Members, however, it is not good enough to find that the tape machine is suddenly turned off at midday with the effect that one does not know the balance of payments or the trade figures. One is also entitled to expect to go into the toilets and to find face towels, but all those disappear the moment the House goes into recess.
Those of us who are in the outbuildings suddenly find that the Evening Standard disappears. I should inform my right hon. and learned Friend that I have got that newspaper back by getting seven colleagues in Norman Shaw to co-sign a letter to say that we wanted that service. It should not have been necessary to write that letter.
I know that my right hon. and learned Friend has an open mind on this, as he has done an enormous amount for the House since he became Leader. There is only one other person who performed even greater services—the late Sir Robin Cooke, without whom much would never

have happened in this place. My right hon. and learned Friend has an opportunity to see that those of us who have to be here to work are not deprived of any services.
I do not want to say any more because there are many hon. Members who wish to participate. I appeal to my hon. and learned Friend to take some action. I hope that he will not say "Well, we have never had those services before. They are always reduced in the recess." Times have changed and until the new buildings are complete and new facilities are offered, the House should not reduce the services normally available to hon. Members.

Mr. John P. Smith: I am grateful for this opportunity to draw to the attention of the House an urgent matter that must be considered before we adjourn—the future of the Lome protocol after the creation of the single European market in 1992. Any discontinuation of that protocol will have a serious effect on British trade in general, but especially on the fruit trade, which greatly concerns my constituency.
I am sure that the House will be aware that the British eat 300,000 tonnes of bananas every year. Everybody is familiar with that figure. Hon. Members may not be so familiar with the fact that more than 70 per cent. of the bananas imported into this country come through the port of Barry in my constituency and that they come from former British colonies in the Windward islands—St. Lucia, Dominica, Grenada and St. Vincent. If the trading relationship that we currently enjoy with those countries, which automatically receive licences to import their primary product—the banana—into Britain, is discontinued, that will have a devasting effect on those former colonies. It will certainly have a devastating effect on the port of Barry, which depends on the banana as its largest single source of trade, and on major British companies —in particular, Geest, which has a long-standing relationship with my constituency and the port of Barry.
With the advent of the single European market, we shall be faced with the prospect of a single tariff for imports across all the member countries. That means that the 40,000 banana growers in the Windward islands will have to compete on a one-to-one basis with the dollar fruit producers in central and southern America. That is out of the question, because the banana plantations in central and southern America are on gigantic flat plains and not on hillsides and because they are controlled by large corporations, which pay what are virtually slave wages to their producers.
Those central and southern American countries already account for 50 per cent. of banana imports into the EEC, with 30 per cent. of imported bananas being domestically grown and just 20 per cent. coming from the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. I am deeply concerned about that 20 per cent. The House should share my concern. We should find time to discuss the matter seriously and consider the effect that our going along with such a change will have on our own industry and trade and on the economies and future of our former colonies in the Windward islands.
At present, Geest has an arrangement with the islands —the Windban agreement—it is a very democratic procedure allowing all the growers to come together and negotiate a price for their produce. The price is a realistic price, although I must say that it is also a protected price


because they are negotiating for a protected market. Geest agrees not only to accept the countries' produce but to provide a service to the islands in terms of exports from Britain, which also go from Barry docks, and trade between the islands. The Geest company provides not only an economic link but a vital social and communications link between the islands which could be lost if the banana protocol is discontinued after 1992.
In 1987, the Prime Minister promised that she would fight hard—I think that those were her exact words—to maintain our long and historic trading relationship with our colonies. I am concerned about the murmurings that are coming from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the effect that licences will be available for banana imports only at an unrealistically low level. That would scupper the chances of growers in the Windward islands and the rest of the Caribbean competing with the big dollar fruit producers in central and south America. There is no question about it: if we lose that trading relationship, the European and British markets will be swamped by dollar bananas and that will have a devastating effect on some of our major companies and on the port of Barry.
It is interesting to note that other countries have already taken steps. The French and Portuguese, for example, have moved to ensure that their existing trading relationships are protected after 1992. We should act now, before it is too late. We should take similar steps to ensure that our trading relationship is protected.
I do not believe that we can allow the present arrangements to continue indefinitely, but we certainly cannot allow them to change over night because of the dramatic effect that that would have. The economies of the Windward islands would be devastated. St. Vincent, for example, exports 70 per cent. of its bananas to Britain and the banana is that country's largest single source of wealth. If it loses the British market, its future will look bleak indeed.
Since the abolition of the dock labour scheme last year, the Barry dockers have formed a successful co-operative—Barry Stevedores Ltd. They, too, depend entirely on the banana trade for their livelihood and futures. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House could cite ports in their constituencies which depend on trade with ACP countries. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that we do whatever we can. It is not simply a question of a moral obligation to our former colonies. Let us be clear about this: Britain and the EEC have encouraged the Windward and other Caribbean islands to invest in their infrastructure to support the growing of a single primary product—in this case banana. We have encouraged that activity, and we have neither encouraged nor allowed diversification into other products.
What do I think the long-term solution is? I support the principle of an open market in which we can compete freely, as long as that open market works and as long as it serves those who live in its area and those to whom we have an obligation. It would be outrageous if we ended the agreement overnight. The House should be considering a staged withdrawal from the agreement in the medium term, to allow those countries to diversify so that they do not depend wholly on one product and also to allow ports such as the port of Barry to find alternative sources of trade.
This is an important matter which has general overseas development implications. I hope that the House will consider carefully what I have said. We should take every

opportunity to raise the matter before it is too late. We should do what our European counterparts are doing, which is to protect their industry and society as well as meeting the historic and moral obligations that they have to their former colonies, on which they depended for so much wealth for so long.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), except to say that his speech brought back memories of responsibilities that I held some years ago.
I wish to draw to the attention of the House a matter that is causing considerable difficulties in my constituency and in the county of Cumbria. I am glad to see that my friend—although not in the parliamentary sense—the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is in the House; my heart nearly stopped when he went out a few moments ago, since I would prefer to have him here to listen to what I am going to say.
There are growing difficulties with education in Cumbria. When the House resumes on 15 October, the schools will be back and more time will have passed, and we shall not have had the opportunity to debate problems which cause much anxiety to me and to others. I hope that we shall have a ministerial statement before we go away about the serious problems that many school governors in Cumbria are facing with their budgets under the introduction of local management of schools.
Many governors have extreme difficulty making their budgets balance, and the difficulties are caused almost entirely by the arrangements made by Cumbria county council for the allocation of total education budgets to schools under the LMS formula. Total spending on LMS in Cumbria for next year is intended to be a little more than £148·5 million. Of that, it is proposed that slightly over £93 million should go to schools for LMS. On the face of it, that might seem a great deal of money, but the percentage of the total education budget to be distributed to schools has recently been lifted from a little over 61 per cent. to 62·6 per cent. So, with great difficulty, we have forced Cumbria county council to increase the allocation by a little more than 1·3 per cent. My efforts and those of some Conservative councillors have been crucial in increasing the proportion of the distribution, but it is still woefully inadequate.
The percentage allocation—62·6 per cent.—is significantly the meanest distribution of any English shire county. It is disgraceful that Cumbria should be in that position. On figures provided by the Department of Education and Science back in February, it is clear that the crude average distribution in English shire counties amounts to almost 69 per cent., which means that Cumbria's shortfall is a little more than six percentage points. That is where the difficulty arises.
These same Government figures show that 12 English shire counties have been able to distribute more than 70 per cent. of their education budgets to schools for local management of schools. East Sussex, for instance, can allocate almost 75 per cent. of its budget for that purpose. So Cumbria is far and away the meanest county when measured by this distribution. It is even far below the second meanest, Cambridgeshire, which has a distribution of 64·13 per cent.

Mr. James Paice: indicated dissent.

Mr. Jopling: Perhaps my figures are a little out of date; if my hon. Friend has another one I should be grateful to hear it.

Mr. Paice: A little sadly, I must tell my right hon. Friend that the figure he quotes is now inaccurate. Cambridgeshire's percentage is now only 59·6, which is even worse.

Mr. Jopling: That surprises me, but it means that our positions at the bottom of the table have been reversed. It seems that my statement that Cumbria is the meanest of all the shire counties is out of date: it is the second meanest. However, it is still about 6 percentage points below the crude average for the country.
My previous figures for Cambridgeshire's distribution clearly show what the problem means in practical terms. Representatives of a school in my constituency wrote to me some time ago explaining the problems that it is having in balancing its budget. The letter said that the school was £29,000 short, and I discovered, using Cambridgeshire's old figure of 64·13 per cent., that even if Cumbria had brought itself up to that miserable level—to share first place as the meanest county in the country—the school in question, Kirkbie Kendal, would have had another £36,000, which would have gone a long way to solving its difficulty and which would certainly have covered the immediate deficit of £29,000.
I am very worried about this as, I am sure, is my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice). No doubt his school governors face the same problems as do mine—in our case because of the behaviour of the Labour and Liberal councillors who control the county council.
The principal reason for the problem was discovered recently by the Audit Commission. At my request, it examined Cumbria's expenditure for education administration and inspection. A letter dated 26 April from the Audit Commission gave me the figures for comparing Cumbria county council and a family of similar authorities in rural constituencies such as mine:
Thus Cumbria spends some £2 million more on these activities than it would if it spent the same as other counties in its family group, per head of population.
Actually, the figure should have been £2·1 million. The letter goes on to make the point that Cumbria has 8 per cent. more school pupils per head of population than the average and that its total education budget is also higher than average.
The letter ends thus:
So if we look at these same costs as a percentage of the total education budget, the difference does not appear quite so marked.
The cost using that other method is just under £1·2 million. The conclusion is clear. Compared with the average for similar counties throughout England, Cumbria's education, administration and inspection costs between £1·2 million and £2 million more. That is a manifestation of the ineptitude of the administration and the councillors who control Cumbria county council. That is one of the reasons for there being no money for the schools.
If Cumbria could bring itself to spend the same as the average of similar counties on administration and inspection, a huge amount of extra money could be spent on schools that are finding great difficulty meeting their

budgets. This is a serious matter. The schools will be back when the House reconvenes and it is important to air the issue now before the House rises on Thursday. I am not opposed to our rising on Thursday, but before we do I hope that the Minister will be able to say whether he can take some steps to ensure that school governors in Cumbria get a fair deal. They are certainly not getting one now.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: The issue that I am about to raise should be debated before the recess. It is about the plan for hospitals in Birmingham. This debate is timely because tomorrow West Midlands regional health authority will meet to approve a plan called "Building a Healthy Birmingham" and that plan will be sent to Ministers. The document was drawn up after much local argument and two attempts at consultation. The result of the regional health authority's operation is a fiasco. It has ignored all opposition to its proposals, although that is not to say that all its proposals were opposed.
The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) spoke about a petition of 24,000 signatures and said that ignoring it amounted to violence. West Midlands regional health authority has ignored a petition opposing the plan to close the city centre Birmingham general hospital and that petition contains the signatures of no fewer than 250,000 people. That flies in the face of the wishes of Birmingham people. All those signatures are almost meaningless to the regional health authority.
There is no change in the health authority's plan that people will have to wait until 2002 for the new children's hospital. There has been a massive demand to bring forward that new hospital at the expense of other changes. People have said that the closure and demolition of the general hospital and the building of its proposed replacement should be set aside until the children's hospital has been built. However, the health authority has said no and pursues its plan willy-nilly.
All the community health councils have been ignored and are asking why the regional health authority even bothered to consult because consultation has proved meaningless. The much-loved Sorrento maternity hospital, which delivers 200 babies a month, is doomed and that is against the wishes of local people who wish to use that fairly small local maternity hospital. However, the desire is for massive hospitals, baby factories, which do not have locally based community services such as those in Sorrento hospital.

Mr. Denis Howell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Rooker: I shall make one other point and then gladly give way to my right hon. Friend.
The regional health authority has ignored the most genuine local newspaper campaign that I can recall during my service in the House. The Birmingham Evening Mail, which is not a supporter of the Labour party, saw the flaws in the regional health authority's plans from day one. The people of Birmingham responded massively to support the campaign run by that newspaper which cut right across the health authority's plans. Those plans mean that the centre of Birmingham, Britain's second city, which has massive infrastructure and new development, will be devoid of major hospital facilities. The Birmingham Evening Mail


saw that and the people responded, but again the unprecedented response was ignored. The free Daily News, which supports the regional health authority, was the vehicle in May for an eight-page regional health authority supplement—and it was not even stated that it was an advertisement.
Most Birmingham Members oppose the planned package. The proposal that will go to the Secretary of State after tomorrow's meeting of the health authority hardly mentions the scale of the opposition from community health councils, Members of Parliament, the newspapers, the city council, and the social services committee or the 250,000-signature petition. Those things are not even referred to. For those reasons the issue should be debated. Right at the beginning of the recess the Secretary of State will get that document on his desk. Now that I have concluded that point I shall gladly give way to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Denis Howell: My hon. Friend concluded his point most emphatically. I support what he said about Sorrento hospital, of which I have personal experience. Within the last three weeks a grandson of mine was born in that hospital. Immediately following the birth and before the afterbirth could be dealt with, procedures had to be interrupted because an emergency case was brought from another major hospital which did not have the room to carry out a caesarean section. That had an unfortunate result for my daughter-in-law, and it proves conclusively that Birmingham is still ill-equipped with wards and facilities to deal with the present case load, never mind closing maternity hospitals.

Mr. Rooker: My right hon. Friend's telling point reinforces what I said about Sorrento hospital.
Birmingham does not want overdeveloped mega-site hospitals with difficulty of access. It is ludicrous for the chairman of the regional health authority to say that no one will be more than five miles away from the hospital. He is looking at straight line distances and should realise that people do not have personal helicopters. The plan takes no account of the difficulties of access for public transport and the road network. That is especially true of the overdevelopment of the site of the Queen Elizabeth hospital.
As I have said, the city council opposes the plan, and the social services department, which some years ago reorganised its structure so that it was based upon the health authority structure, thus enabling them to work conterminously, has never been consulted about any of these proposals. The health authority is barmy in the way it has gone ahead. The plan has been described as dictatorial and manipulative and the community health councils are demanding apologies. The plans have been headlined as a kick in the teeth and the way that the matter has been handled from start to finish is appalling.
I shall conclude with two issues, one of which is slightly contentious from a party political point of view. However, it shows the state of affairs in the conduct of public administration. On, I think, Friday, the West Midlands regional health authority put out a four-page press release naming the new regional health authority members in the reconstituted system. It stated:
The Secretary of State for Health has announced the names of the five non-executive directors of the reconstituted West Midlands Regional Health Authority.

The press release named the five and gave biographical details and some record of their public life. They, along with the re-appointed chairman, Sir James Ackers, would appoint the five executive directors. Why is it thought necessary after 11 years of Conservative government with overwhelming majorities to point out that one of the five executive directors is a member of the Labour party? There is no mention whatever of the political affiliation of the other four. I conclude that Sonia Beesley, Tim Morris, Professor Michael Thompson and Michael Worley must be members of the Conservative party. One can draw no other conclusion.
It is a thundering disgrace that one member was singled out. I do not criticise the background and record of any of the other four, but what is the relevance of the fact that one director is a member of the Labour party? It is offensive to me that such things are said. The way in which the matter was handled was an absolute disgrace from start to finish.
I say to the Leader of the House and through him to the Government and the Secretary of State that if the Secretary of State accepts the plan that is due to be rubber-stamped tomorrow, almost in the last days of the regional health authority, the closure of the general hospital and the delay until the next century in building the new children's hospital will become a key ingredient in the general election in Birmingham. We shall make it so. Some Conservatives will make it so.
There is enormous opposition to the closure of the general hospital and the delay in building the new children's hospital. We should much rather have the new children's hospital in advance of the closure of the general hospital. If the money runs out, fine: we can keep the general hospital in the centre of the city of Birmingham.
The regional health authority made up its mind what it wanted to do from day one, the best part of 18 months ago. I say that from memory, but it must be that long. It has changed almost nothing in its plans. It has changed only minor aspects such as shifting a boundary or transferring one aspect of health from one lead district health authority to another. None of the basic framework has been changed. We shall be left with mega-hospitals to which people will find it difficult to travel. The mega-hospitals will be highly vulnerable in times of emergency. We shall be left with no major general hospital in Birmingham city centre. That is not on.
I warn the Secretary of State through the Leader of the House that the people of Birmingham will not put up with it. On general election day they will be given an opportunity to vote for a real alternative that will meet the needs of the people of Birmingham, not the bureaucrats in West Midlands regional health authority. The bureaucrats take a pile of statistics and say, "A general hospital cannot serve a population of less than a certain size. That is what the text books and planners tell us we should have." We do not want it. That is not the basis on which health care should be organised in the second city of this country. The people of Birmingham will not wear it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The Leader of the House and Shadow Leader of the House intend to seek to catch my eye at five to nine. There are still six hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate, so I appeal for brief speeches.

Mr. Douglas French: I have a selection of fairly diverse points to make. They come together in one speech because they are all matters to which I should like attention to be given before the House rises for the summer Adjournment.
My first two points are on transport safety. The first is car telephones, which I have raised in the House on several occasions. I continue to believe that the use of car telephones by drivers while the vehicle is in motion is dangerous. It needs to be curbed. I have raised the subject in debates, in questions, in correspondence with the Minister and in a private Member's Bill. I have had letters on the subject from people throughout the country. Each one has agreed that car telephones are a danger to road safety and need some legislative attention.
I was slightly encouraged by a parliamentary answer that I received this week from the previous Minister for Roads and Traffic, who has moved on to other things. He said:
I deplore the use of hand-held telephones by drivers whilst their vehicle is moving."—[Official Report, 18 July 1990; Vol. 176, c. 585.]
That represented some progress on replies that I had received previously. He went on to say that he considered that existing legislation took care of the problem which was covered by the provisions for driving without due care and attention and the obligation to have proper control of one's vehicle at all times.
It is a pity that that Minister has moved on. It puts me in the position that my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) described, when he said that he had to start again with the new Minister.
The points that I have endeavoured to promote are simple. The first is, that the use of such telephones would be much safer if they were all equipped with remote microphones and speakers, so that they could be used by the driver without his taking his hands off the wheel of the car. The second requirement is that the dialling mechanism should be pre-programmed with a short-call facility or operated by a voice activated system. That is now commercially available at a reasonable price. The third requirement is that the dialling mechanism for such equipment should be at the fascia level and not somewhere down near the gear lever, away from the line of vision of the driver.
My proposals are all preventive. The current legislation is a way of tackling people who drive carelessly because their attention has been distracted by making or receiving a telephone call. I propose steps to ensure that the danger will be averted before it arises. They would help to enhance road safety and would undoubtedly save lives as result.
My second point on transport safety is very much in mind at a time when a holiday period is approaching, and an increasing number of private planes will be in use. It is extraordinary that so often tragic accidents take place at holiday times, but it is even more extraordinary that there is no requirement for private pilots to have third party insurance. That fact seems to have been neglected for many years. We place great importance on the need for motorists always to be equipped with third party insurance, but there is no such requirement for private pilots. There should be such a requirement, and I hope that the Minister responsible will turn his attention to it as soon as possible.
My next point is on housing. I applaud the efforts made by the Government to encourage private sector provision of rented accommodation. One respect in which landlords are badly served is the arrangements for payment of housing benefit directly to the landlord on behalf of a tenant. If it is discovered later that the tenant's eligibility for housing benefit ceased during the period of his tenancy, the landlord is asked to repay the housing benefit that he has received as rent. He will be asked to do that even though he provided the accommodation in good faith, he could have provided the accommodation to another tenant if rent had not been forthcoming and he may have had no means whatever of knowing that the tenant's eligibility for housing benefit had terminated during the period of the tenancy.
It seems extremely unfair that there should be a clawback on housing benefit paid as rental in this way. It is likely to discourage people from providing private rented accommodation at a time when other Government measures are designed to enhance that possibility to help to ease housing pressures.
My next point relates to the activities of commercial estate agents. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), recently published draft orders and regulations under section 3 of the Estate Agents Act 1979, which set out specific offences and undesirable practices in which some unscrupulous estate agents engage. The most obvious among them are misdescriptions of property, failure to observe the requirement not to tie together property and financial services, and the bidding up of prices.
My hon. Friend the Minister is also involved in proposals to extend the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 to cover misdescriptions of property, and I applaud his efforts in that respect. My hon. Friend is building on the excellent work of the Director General of Fair Trading, who in March published a booklet on estate agency practice, which contains many excellent recommendations, and makes proposals for what he calls "cleaning up" the profession.
However, the director general's report and the two regulations emanating from my hon. Friend the Minister are heavily influenced by the residential estate agency sector. Paragraph 2(4) of the report of the Director General of Fair Trading says that "surprisingly little comment" was received during the preparation of the report on the application of the proposed measures to the commercial property market.
The circulation list for the draft regulations does not include any of the leading commercial estate agency practices, yet that sector is guilty of abuses which may be hidden but which are just as serious as those in the residential sector.
One such abuse is the way in which comparisons are drawn between the rental levels achieved in one property and those achieved in others. There is much evidence to suggest that certain agents find it a little too easy to confuse a rental level that they hope to achieve with one that they have achieved. That has the consequence of misleading a prospective tenant. Another is the way in which a particular property is measured. That is not a matter for the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 but concerns the formula that may be used in measuring a property and what constitutes net usable space. That is important if one is endeavouring to make a fair calculation of total rental


value, and of the total capital value that is a direct consequence of it. Those points are both important and ought to receive early attention. They relate specifically to the commercial sector, not to residential estate agents.
My final point relates to the Finanical Sercices Act 1986, which I continue to believe is an unhappy piece of legislation, especially as it relates to the activities of self-regulatory organisations. I am prompted to raise that matter by the constituency case of C. J. How and C. J. How International, investment companies in which constituents of mine invested considerable sums of money. At the time that those investments were made, the compensation provisions of the Financial Services Act 1986 had not come into force, so those investments were not covered. By the time that those provisions had been implemented, C. J. How and its associated companies had had their FIMBRA membership withdrawn.
In those circumstances, FIMBRA could not take responsibility for the company's actions, including, it seems, if it continued to accept investments. At that point, the company became the responsibility of the Securities and Investments Board, but it seems that the SIB does not have a procedure for ensuring that all investors know that such a change has taken place. As a consequence, the public may continue to invest, in the belief that the company is still a member of a self-regulatory organisation, when that membership has been lost. The end result has been for my constituents the loss of a considerable amount of money that they have no means of recovering. It is a serious matter that demands early attention.

Mr. David Winnick: I understand that there is great excitement on the Government Benches over some of the ministerial changes that have occurred today. I will only say that the Government are as unpopular as ever as we go into the summer recess.

Mr. Greg Knight: The hon. Gentleman will never know what it is like to serve in a Government.

Mr. Winnick: I did not hear the remark made by the Government Whip, but if he wants to intervene, I will give way.
I suppose that the Leader of the House and deputy Prime Minister can at least congratulate himself on surviving. Perhaps he should thank us on the Labour Benches, because the very fact that we have raised the question of his future in the Government has made it far more difficult for the Prime Minister to take any action against him.
During the recess, there will be taking place in my borough, as elsewhere, a formal period of consultation over whether certain national health hospitals will become so-called self-governing. I question whether the consultation process will have any meaning and whether the Secretary of State for Health has not already made the decision to approve the changeover, regardless of the strength of opposition in a given locality.
The district general hospital in my borough, Walsall, usually referred to as the Manor, is on the list for self-governing status. A genuine consultation exercise was undertaken by the local authority, in which questionnaires were sent to every household in the borough. It included all the arguments for and against, and no one suggested

that they were in any way unfair. Even the local health authority accepted that the arguments for self-governing status were fairly put.
There could be no doubt either about the response. A total of 27,639 people were against the hospital achieving self-governing status, and only 6,004 were in favour—more than 78 per cent. of respondents were not in favour of the Manor becoming self-governing, and more than 94 per cent. believed that local people should be consulted about such a change. Some 68 per cent. held the view that a change would lead to a poorer service.
If the regional health authority will not allow a vote on the matter—clearly there will be no such vote in my borough or elsewhere, even though there should be, because that is how the democratic process works in our country—what criteria will it use in the consultation exercise? Who will be consulted?
The district general manager for the Walsall health authority is extremely enthusiastic about opting out, but whether a full-time administrator should be involved in what are undoubtedly highly sensitive and controversial political issues is very much open to question. I have made my views clear on that locally on a number of occasions.
It is plain that the national medical organisations, such as the British Medical Association's joint consultants committee and the Royal College of Nursing, are all strenuously opposed to self-governing status.
When, in a parliamentary question, I asked the Secretary of State for Health to name one national medical organisation in favour of the change, he could not do so. That was understandable, because no such body is in favour, and that is reflected locally.
The public want more funding for the national health service, better services and facilities. In every opinion poll which touches upon the national health service, again and again the point is made that the Government are not providing sufficient funding—no matter what figures are given by the Secretary of State or by the Prime Minister at Question Time.
The local community health council in Walsall fears that a change will cause difficulties at Manor hospital. Present services may no longer be provided, and the elderly and the chronically sick may have to go to a hospital outside the borough.
The internal market puts the emphasis on profitable services. Hospitals will become more fragmented as a result of opting out. That is why it is absolutely essential that there should be a meaningful consultation exercise, and, above all, that there should be a proper vote.
The second matter I want to mention is far removed from my borough—the remarks made last week by the President of Zambia about the execution of the journalist Farzad Bazoft. Obviously, like all hon. Members, I welcome the release of Daphne Parish, and I praise the efforts that the President of Zambia made to secure her release from prison. However, it is dangerous nonsense to suggest that the reason journalist was hanged was pressure from this country on the Iraqi regime.
If there is any criticism to be made of the British Government in this, and in related matters, it is 'quite the opposite—that the Government have not protested enough about the appalling abuses of human rights in Iraq, and the numerous killings by the regime there. Very few regimes that the have such a murderous record as that of the Government that rule Iraq.
Mr. Bazoft was arrested on 15 September last year and brought before the court on 8 March. He was sentenced to death two days later, and five days later, on 15 March, he was hanged. The matter was first raised in another place on 14 November in a written question. The reply stated that the British authorities were seeking access to him and to Daphne Parish on humanitarian grounds. The matter was only raised in this Chamber orally on 12 March, after sentence was passed on 10 March. There was a private notice question on 12 March, when hon. Members on both sides of the House understandably expressed strong concern that he had been sentenced to death. Three days later, on 15 March, the Foreign Secretary made a statement, as Mr. Bazoft had been hanged that morning.
If it is argued that pressure from this country caused his death—as I have already said, that is dangerous nonsense—if it was a valid criticism to say that pressure from the Government, from the House or from the media resulted in the hanging, I ask hon. Members to bear in mind the fact that, on 11 July, a citizen of Sweden was executed as a spy by the Iraqi regime. There was no campaign in Sweden. As far as I can tell—I have received information from the Library—the matter had not been raised in the Swedish Parliament. The Swedish Government made some representations, but a low profile was maintained. That did not have any effect upon the Iraqi regime, and the person was executed.
It is quite clear that it was not undue pressure or criticism of the Iraqi regime that led to the execution on 15 March of someone who travelled on a British travel document, and had protection in law from the United Kingdom. He would have been executed anyway, because the Iraqi regime were determined that he should be.
From what Daphne Parish has said—many hon. Members will have seen her comments in The Observer yesterday—Mr. Bazoft was clearly not a spy, and neither was she. Any confession that he made—as we now know and as we strongly suspected at the time—was made under threat of torture. It is important to set the record straight. It was unfortunate that the President of Zambia—whatever he has done to secure the release of Daphne Parish—I praise his efforts—should have made such comments. They are not valid, there is no truth in them and the record should be clear about where responsibility for the execution on 15 March lies.

Mr. John Ward: I wish to raise two points—one that is parochial and one that is of wider significance.
The port of Poole has been busily expanding, and has roll on/roll off ferries serving Cherbourg and the Channel Islands. Additional roads have been constructed by the local authority on reclaimed land across the harbour. However there is a bottleneck—a lifting bridge across the harbour.
The bridge has to be opened about 20 times a day in the summer to allow commercial and yachting traffic to pass through and the consequential traffic jams back up through the town. It is intolerable that, in such a thriving port and commercial area, the replacement of the bridge may be delayed, because the Department of Transport has agreed to take over responsibility for it under the trunk road scheme. We are delighted that the Department will

meet the cost of that and attached works, which amounts to £40 million, but we are less pleased that, instead of a start date in early 1990s, as envisaged by the county council, a decision, even on the type of bridge, will not be made until 1993, and we may well have to tolerate serious road congestion, with all the attendant frustration for locals and holidaymakers, until the late 1990s.
I hope that the new Minister for Roads and Traffic can be persuaded to come to see Poole for himself and to witness the problems caused by such delay.
The other matter I must mention is perhaps of importance to the House—the developing situation in eastern and central Europe, and especially the relationship of the emerging democracies with present European institutions.
I am worried that the EEC is developing into a close-knit organisation, and is making it more difficult, and not easier, for countries to join with either associate or full status.
Events at the recent summit in Houston show that there is little willingness to reduce the cost and the lack of competitiveness of the common agricultural policy, and so we are making it difficult for eastern and central European countries to associate with us. We raise trade barriers, but Conservative Members would much prefer free and fair access to all European markets.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will continue to try to bring a degree of sanity to the world of agricultural pricing, and that she will also remember that the British farmer can compete. There is no reason why we should subsidise hobby farmers in other countries. I welcome the co-operation of the Council of Europe which, at its autumn session will invite parliamentary delegations from non-member states that are signatories of the Helsinki Final Act. Such countries will be able to participate in the debate on an equal footing with assembly members, including the right to vote. I support all that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) said about that.
We all want the integration of eastern, central and western Europe into one free, democratic society. That will be more easily achieved through a loose-knit organisation like the Council of Europe, where every country can proceed at its own pace, than by erecting barriers, which will make it difficult for integration to take place.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Hungary showed the path that I believe we should follow, when he told a Western European Union meeting in Paris last month:
We envisage the future of a united Europe not as a great monolithic bloc but as the sum of regionalism, preserving the diversity of national identities.
He described a Europe from the Urals to the Atlantic, a Europe with a common purpose and a common home but, above all, a Europe that was allowed to keep its individual identities. That is what I should like to see.

Mr. Bob Cryer: In the few minutes that remain, I follow what has been said about east-west relations by saying that they have radically changed. That is why the House should debate the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty before we rise on Thursday. It is an important treaty. It is committed to multilateral nuclear disarmament, the maintenance of peace and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. There are 142 signatories to the treaty.
By the time that we resume on 15 October, a review conference will have been held between 20 August and 14 September. We ought to know the Government's attitude towards that conference. The subject is extremely important, particularly as the Government are breaking clause 6 of the treaty, which says:
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective control.
What is the United Kingdom doing about that? It is embarking on a £10 billion programme to introduce Trident nuclear weapons that will be between four and 10 times more powerful than Polaris nuclear missiles. Each Polaris submarine that goes out on patrol carries more explosive power than was used by both sides in the 1939–45 war. However, the Government propose to increase that firepower by up to 10 times, depending on the number of nuclear missiles that are deployed in each submarine. The Government are therefore in breach of their treaty obligations.
One of the underlying provisions of the treaty is that the 139 non-nuclear signatories have agreed to abide by its terms, provided that the three nuclear signatories carry out clause 6 and do something about getting rid of nuclear weapons. Only two of the signatories, the United States and the Soviet Union, have carried out clause 6, though not fully, through the intermediate nuclear arms treaty that has got rid of cruise missiles from our shores. So much the better. However, they represent only 4 per cent. of the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons. Our world is still in danger. The changes in east-west relations should not hide the fact that there are too many nuclear weapons, that the United Kingdom Government want, more nuclear weapons and that they have no facilities at the moment that would lead to the reduction, removal or destruction of those weapons.
While the House is in recess, nations will be meeting and saying to the United Kingdom Government, "We signed the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty and said that we would not manufacture or deploy nuclear weapons, on the basis that under clause 6 you would start to get rid of your nuclear weapons." The United Kingdom has been a signatory of the treaty for many years, but has done nothing to implement the terms of the treaty. Inevitably, a non-nuclear state will point its finger at the United Kingdom and say, "We shall do what the United Kingdom has done. We shall deploy and manufacture nuclear weapons because the United Kingdom has shown not the slightest interest or willingness to get rid of them and begin the process of nuclear disarmament."
By cancelling the Trident nuclear weapons programme, we should be saying to the 139 non-nuclear signatories to the United Nations non-proliferation treaty, "We agree with you. We shall support the vast majority of the world's nations that do not manufacture or deploy nuclear weapons." That is the only way that our planet can survive. That is why the treaty is so important. Therefore, it is lamentable that the Government have not provided time for a debate.
Another initiative that the Government could take would be to announce that they intend to ban all tests of our nuclear weapons and to join in talks on a comprehensive test ban treaty. That would lead to no

further development of nuclear weapons. It would complement the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty and would be an important step forward.
It is shameful and lamentable that the Government have not provided time to debate that important treaty to which they pay lip service. Recently Ministers have said, "It's a pity that it's a failure." The only failure that one can attribute to the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty is the United Kingdom Government's failure to honour it. Whatever political party is in power, there is no moral or economic justification for the manufacture and deployment of nuclear weapons. Moreover, a very strong and important treaty provides that we shouild not manufacture and deploy nuclear weapons. By honouring it, the next Labour Government will be able to strengthen world peace and will join the majority of nations that say no to nuclear weapons.

Dr. John Cunningham: Adjournment debates are usually good-natured affairs and address a number of serious issues. That has happened this evening. I am pleased that we are coming to the end of this Session. During it, three close friends, Allan Roberts, Sean Hughes and Mike Carr, all met untimely deaths. This place is the poorer without them.
Several points have been made during the evening on both sides of the House which I agree with and support. Again, there is nothing unusual about that. However, it will be difficult in the relatively short time that is left to me to reply to 14 or 15 individual speeches. Everyone agreed with the point made by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) that more effort should be made to conserve ancient mosslands, wetlands and peatlands, especially when sites of special scientific interest are involved. He said that proper conservation management should apply to peat extraction and to any other kind of industrial activity that takes place upon them. Many people would go further and say that no such activity should be allowed on the more sensitive sites.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) referred to the much-publicised acid house party in Morley. He is right to draw our attention to a growing problem that causes disturbance, distress and often damage to people's property and to the need for more concerted Government action to control what is becoming a national problem. I share his view that the people of Morley—no doubt my constituents would feel the same—would not like what they experienced recently to be repeated.
I listened with a wry smile to the speech of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) who originates from the north-east of England, as I do. I agreed with him about the importance of the channel tunnel, and improved rail links and road infrastructure for the north-west of England. I certainly support him if he was including Cumbria in the north-west and in his pleas for greater investment.
The wry smile arises because the hon. Member, and many other Conservative Members, call specifically for increased public investment in their constituencies, while almost universally voting against it for the nation as a whole when they support the Government in the Division Lobby. That is a variation on the NIMBY phrase—not in my back yard. In this case it is OIMBY, only in my back


yard. They want investment in their constituencies, but seek to deny it to other parts of the country. I shared his views when he made a special plea for greater help for people suffering from epilepsy.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) spoke of the Scottish convention and the important work it does. Like her, I regret that, at least formally, the Conservative party and the Scottish National party are not represented in its work. Like her, I continue to be dismayed by the failure of the Leader of the House to discharge his duty to the House under Standing Orders to set up a Scottish Select Committee. It is, if not unprecedented, extremely rare for a Leader of the House to fail to meet his obligations in the way that the right hon. and learned Gentleman continues to do.
We in the Labour party also share the criticisms of the Government's Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, which we believe should be withdrawn.
The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) spoke about the endless saga of the Worthing bypass—

Mr. Higgins: The non-bypass.

Dr. Cunningham: Yes—the non-bypass.
I have considerable sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman because the tale that he described was almost word for word my description of the continuing failure of the Department of Transport to provide a bypass for the ancient market town of Egremont in my constituency. Having failed to notify people properly of the public inquiry, it now seems to have further failed and caused more incompetent delay by making a mess of the compulsory purchase orders. It is still unclear, after more than a decade, when and whether work on the Egremont bypass will be allowed to begin.
I also share the right hon. Gentleman's view that the road to which he referred—like the one that we are likely to get—is not a bypass, but a relief road. In Egremont, that will ensure that any development takes place to the east of the town, on the only available land, so the "bypass" runs right through the middle of the enlarged town.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) spoke about the disgraceful treatment of British, mainly English, people in Rimini and elsewhere following a World cup football match. I hope that Ministers will respond positively and speedily to his call for a thorough investigation into the treatment of our fellow citizens.
I disagreed with the proposition of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) that the Bar Council and the Director of Public Prosecutions should have overriding powers over democratically elected local authorities that seek redress through the courts against arbitrary Government action. He seemed to suggest that Conservative councils such as Wandsworth and Westminster could quite properly hire lobbyists to get their grants changed under the poll tax system, working covertly and behind the scenes, while Labour councils working in the open were to be denied the due processes of law. I simply cannot accept that as a proposition, as I said to the hon. Gentleman in a brief intervention.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I did not say that those councils should be denied the right, but that if they took the decision against advice, councillors, not charge payers, should pay.

Dr. Cunningham: I think that that idea is even worse because a number of cases involving Government mismanagement have been exposed over the past few years. When there are huge losses to the taxpayer as a result of Government incompetence and mismanagement, no one suggests that Ministers should be held personally responsible. The personal surcharge, as it affects councillors, is an anachronism that should be abolished, not extended.
I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) about the importance to the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries of the banana industry, and the importance of that industry and British imports to the workers in Barry docks in his constituency.
The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) rightly described me as a parliamentary friend and constituency neighbour. That is as far as our agreement goes. The right hon. Gentleman failed to say that in a letter signed by the education spokesmen and women of all political parties in Cumbria—Conservative, Labour and Liberal—the all-party approach to the Government was to seek more money for the education budget of Cumbria county council. The Conservative party on Cumbria county council, which has no majority, played a willing and open part in saying that the Government's allocation was inadequate to meet the proper needs of Cumbria's children.
The Government provided more taxpayers' money—£7·6 million—for one city technology college in Nottingham than for the capital budget for education in Cumbria. That is not an example of a shortage of resources but of political decisions being taken by Conservative Ministers—former colleagues of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale in Government. The right hon. Gentleman was corrected by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), who pointed out that under LMS Cambridgeshire was being allocated less money than Cumbria. I share the right hon. Gentleman's view on the problems of small schools, particularly in rural areas, because I have many in my constituency, but I do not share his partial and, in at least one particular, inaccurate description of the state of affairs in Cumbria.

Mr. Jopling: Will the hon. Gentleman attempt to justify why Cumbria is so very far below the national level for English shire counties in its distribution for LMS? So far as I can see, there is no justification for that niggardly distribution.

Dr. Cunningham: I, too, have urged Cumbria county council to be as generous as possible in the circumstances that prevail because I regard the education of our children as the most important investment that we can make. The right hon. Gentleman was a Cabinet Minister for many years, particularly when the Government systematically, deliberately and persistently cut rate support grant for Cumbria—the county he represents—so it is rather late in the day for him to protest about the inadequacy of education investment in the county.

Mr. Jopling: That is not the point.

Dr. Cunningham: It is the point.
I share the views expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) about the proposed changes in the national health service, especially the development of so-called self-governing hospitals. I believe that they will be against the public interest and the interests of a better, more effective and more responsive health service, but I do not believe for a moment that proper notice will be taken of public attitudes and interest. From what we have seen so far, whatever the consultation process and however the public are given the opportunity to express a view, the likelihood is that they will be ignored and that people will go their own way regardless.
I smiled when I listened to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) because I recognised his description of the problems of Poole harbour bridge—a location that I know well from my many happy days in Poole and its environs as a student. I hope that he gets his wish, but he is another Conservative Member who has consistently voted for cuts in public expenditure and would like to see more expenditure in his constituency. This facing both ways simply cannot be reconciled.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) had only a few minutes—I regret that a couple of Conservative Members were not called—to speak about the important issue of nuclear disarmament, which we all want to proceed as quickly and effectively as possible.
However Governments feel, they usually utter a sigh of content when they see the end of parliamentary Sessions and the House of Commons being dispersed for the summer recess. This week, we have heard a collective, highly audible gasp of relief from the Government, who are in desperate trouble. In the past few months, four major Cabinet Ministers have resigned—the right hon. Members for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), for Worcester (Mr. Walker) and, most recently and in the most disgraceful circumstances, for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).
The Government have not recovered from their disastrous policy of introducing the poll tax. They are presiding over the highest inflation rate since March 1982 —9·8 per cent.—and the highest of all our competitor countries. The Government presided over a current account deficit of £19·1 billion in 1989, with the most recent trade figures showing a £1·36 billion deficit. The Government are in deep trouble because of the hypocrisy of their about-faces. In the autumn statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
in a society that is experiencing real growth in wealth, the disadvantaged and the elderly should benefit too."—[Official Report, 23 January 1990, Vol. 165, c. 750.]
That was the Minister in the Government who, last week, cynically decided to cast aside their commitments on community care.
I emphasise the fact that the Government are in deep trouble, not only with their policies and with the public but with their campaigns. A few weeks ago, the chairman of the Tory party, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, lauched his "Summer Heat on Labour". It had all the sparkle of a wet Woodbine. It spluttered and went out. Now we have seen a Government reshuffle, irrelevant to the problems faced by the people. It is the policies that should change because, like us, the British people feel that

Britain is heading in the wrong direction. Happily, they will not have long to wait for a general election and a change.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) was able to bring his properly discursive remarks to what must pass for a rousing conclusion which did not command much support in the House—it certainly commanded no support among Conservative Members. The hon. Gentleman talked about the "sigh of content" that normally accompanies these debates. I noticed overwhelming enthusiasm on both sides of the House for the idea that the House should rise on the advertised day. I am certain that the Labour party will want to spend much of the recess re-examining its recently revealed commitment to replace the community charge with the rates, which the Labour party repudiated over many years. The Government, who have presided over a long period of economic growth—there has been a larger growth in employment in this country than in any other—will devote themselves during the vacation to preparing our plans for the Session ahead with confidence and authority.
I can at least join the hon. Member for Copeland in expressing sadness at the number of our colleagues who have passed away during the Session—one of whom we mourn today; the Conservative Member, John Heddle, whom we particularly remember; and a former colleague who moved on to another place and who was well loved by both sides of the House, Jock Bruce-Gardyne, who showed remarkable courage in the face of adversity.
It is a feature of these debates that I must start by responding to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who told us that he could not be here for the debate's conclusion. I was struck by the way in which he raised questions about the mosses on the Clwyd-Shropshire border, less than 10 miles from the house that we shared many years ago. He was right to do so. The Government recognise the nature conservation importance of the peatlands. We are aware of the worries expressed about the effects of peat extraction and of the need to balance two needs and to ensure that the Nature Conservancy Council has the resources with which to respond. Those resources were increased from £7·9 million at the beginning of this Government's term to £44 million in the current year—a substantial increase, which I am sure will help.
Like the hon. Member for Copeland, I was struck by the point raised by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). He was right to draw attention to the serious implications of the acid house party at Gildersome. The police are still investigating all the aspects. The incident certainly justifies the substantial increase in penalties recently enacted in the Entertainments (Increased Penalties) Act 1990, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright). Let me join the right hon. Gentleman by expressing concern about similar activities in my own county of Surrey, some of which have been prevented, while others are the subject of criminal prosecutions. I am certain that the Government will continue to take seriously the concern that he has expressed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) is another regular participant in these debates: there is a regularity not only about his participation, but about his contributions. He again referred to the position of Manchester airport, although this time in a more optimistic style, which I was glad to welcome. When I was there within the past couple of weeks, I was impressed by the large volume of traffic that the airport now handles. During a subsequent visit to the Flint enterprise zone, I met an American entrepreneur who had been able to travel from Manchester airport to the Flint enterprise zone via the massively improved road system, having flown in to Manchester that morning.
My hon. Friend was also right to emphasise the importance of good rail links with the channel tunnel. British Rail plans to invest more than £1 billion to ensure that there is an effective international passenger and freight service from the tunnel. Its record investment programmes for the country as a whole—amounting to an increase of 75 per cent. in real terms over the previous three years—are, to some extent, relevant to the points raised by my hon. Friend.
I think that we would all endorse what my hon. Friend for Altrincham and Sale said about the position of the disabled in employment. He will be aware that the Secretary of State for Employment issued a consultative document on 29 June, inviting comments on the merits and demerits of various legislative approaches to securing good practice in the employment of disabled people, and will be taking account of representations received in that respect.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) referred to the Scottish Constitutional Convention. On her own admission, the convention is—at least to some extent —a self-selected group of people whose sole objective is the establishment of some form of Scottish Assembly. As she knows, the Government do not think that that would be to Scotland's advantage, and that is why we have declined to participate. We are fully committed not just to the Union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom—which we believe delivers great benefit to our citizens—but to the current arrangements for the representation of Scotland, which we believe provide for the effective representation of Scotland's interests and acknowledge its distinct nationhood.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) raised several points. He is concerned about the proposition for a throughpass, rather than a bypass, in his constituency. I cannot comment on the merits of that, but I have no doubt that the "violent" representations that he has reported will be taken into account by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. He knows that the Secretary of State for the Environment is considering possible improvements to the provisions for compensation, and I shall draw my right hon. Friend's points to his attention. As for the appointment of consultants, they were apparently appointed by the Department in accordance with normal open competition, and the consultancy went to the best offer. I do not know how far my right hon. Friend's point was taken into account, but I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I cannot do more than that.

Mr. Higgins: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend; I realise that he is not very familiar with the position. Let me stress that I am in favour of a bypass, not a throughpass. The question is not whether the consultants were appointed in open competition, but whether the Government were aware that the person from the Department had taken a job with the consultants who were supposed to be giving an impartial opinion. That should really be dealt with by the civil service Minister, as well as the Minister for Roads and Traffic.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate that; that is why I said that I would refer the matter to my right hon. Friends. There is no need for me to repeat myself.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) spoke at length about his anxieties regarding the treatment of British subjects in Italy during the recent football matches. I have no doubt that he made that presentation in good faith. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) pointed out, it was a presentation of only one side of the case. He did not acknowledge the extent to which his demand for effective action against, as he put it, the small group of troublemakers, involved difficult judgments being made by the authorities on both sides.
We appreciate the Italian determination to avoid violent incidents. They were within their rights under Community law to remove people they considered to be a threat to public order. However, we are prepared to take up with the Italian authorities, as we should do, allegations of ill treatment. The consular staff present in Rimini tried to assist at the time but were unable to gain access because it was not open to them to do so until charges had been brought. All that I can say is that I shall bring his long intervention to the attention of the newly appointed Minister for Sport. I am sure that he will investigate it as far as he can.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate raised one point which aroused controversy between him and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. I shall not intervene on that. My hon. Friend referred to the need to extend parliamentary representation in the CSCE context beyond that available in the Western European Union. His points were echoed to some extent by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) who was also seeking greater involvement of parliamentarians in the process of engaging east Europeans in our west European discussions. He will find that that topic will be dealt with a little more fully in an Adjournment debate to be opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) later tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate also raised some detailed points about parliamentary conditions. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not deal with the towels at this stage in the debate. I shall look into the points he raised because it is important that this place should not, further than is necessary, close down to the extent that it does during the recess. He knows—I am grateful for his kind words—that I am aware of the extent of dissatisfaction felt by hon. Members on both sides about facilities here, despite the best efforts of officers and staff, who deserve our thanks. It is for that reason that the Commission hopes that the work by Sir Robin Ibbs and his team will help clarify and improve decision-making processes here. I look forward to bringing the results to the House before Christmas.
Hon. Members will have noticed motions on the Order Paper today to implement changes recommended by the Procedure Committee about the tabling of oral questions. That will be a small but significant streamlining of procedures which should lead to considerable savings in costs. I expect that the House will have no difficulty in accepting them so that I may have an early opportunity of putting them to the House.
The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) knows my response to his question, which he put to me some time ago. I have an emotional attachment to the banana boats from Barry, as they were features of my childhood. As he described, they have a greater relevance to the Windward Islands, which are no longer colonies. They are self-governing states within the Commonwealth but are none the less important for that. I have another concern because Geest has a depot in Lingfield in my constituency. Therefore, we join together in this respect.
The points that the hon. Gentleman raised about the status of those countries under the ACP-Lome agreement are still under active consideration in Brussels. No decisions have yet been reached. The Community is fully aware of its commitments to the traditional suppliers under the Lome convention. We strongly consider that these should be taken fully into account, together with other factors, in drawing up future arrangements for banana imports after 1992. I am sure that he appreciates the importance we attach to that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) raised the question of the proportion of expenditure being devoted to educational facilities under the local management of schools proposals in his county. It is right to say that one feature of the LMS changes has been to focus much more attention on the distribution of resources between education and administration. The suggested formula enables resources to be allocated more openly to bring those matters into public debate.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has made it clear that he is concerned about the amount of money that local education authorities are retaining for central management. He spoke to the Council of Local Education Authorities on 18 July and announced that he was considering reviewing the percentage limit on items exempted from delegation and on the categories of expenditure that are subject to those limits. In our different ways we are all paying attention to that important matter and I hope that the county council will respond to the observations made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) focused particularly on the plans for hospitals being put forward by the Birmingham regional health authority. I cannot comment in detail on those structures. However, I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman's observations are drawn to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health and to the attention of the health authority.
I was not altogether impressed by the immoderation of the language with which the hon. Member for Perry Barr presented his case. He assumed certain things and then proceeded to condemn them as a disgrace. He was also less than generous about the extent to which resources for the national health service have been massively increased under this Government.

Mr. Rooker: That is not the issue.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: No, but it is a point worth making and one which should be made.
For every £1 spent on the national health service in 1979, £3 is being spent today. There has been a real increase of 40 per cent. in the total resources. That relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I am glad that the hon. Members for Walsall, North and for Copeland now use the correct nomenclature and do not any longer talk about hospitals opting out of the health service. They recognise that they are achieving self-governing status. Those hospital trusts will remain firmly within the health service. Regional health authorities will be required to consult locally on trust applications. They will seek the views of community health councils and others with interests, including health authorities, the staff concerned and GPs in the local community. The pattern of services in national health service trusts will broadly reflect the current service pattern. There will be no sudden changes.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North also referred to Iraq. No one is under any illusions about the quality of the Government in that country. We should express our thanks to President Kaunda for his part in securing the release of Mrs. Parish, although we reject his accusation that Britain is responsible for Mr. Bazoft's death and the imprisonment of Mrs. Parish.
I hope that Iraq's new attitude will also pave the way for the early release of the imprisoned British businesss man Mr. Ian Richter. I am sure that that hope is shared by all hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. 'Ward) raised a point about the lifting bridge in his constituency. I cannot comment on that in detail. He also endorsed what I said about the importance of the Community membership being open to east European countries in the years ahead. I agree with him about that.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cryer) raised questions about the non-proliferation treaty. For the foreseeable future, as he knows, United Kingdom and NATO defence will depend in part on nuclear deterrence. There will, therefore, remain a need to conduct underground nuclear tests to ensure that our weapons remain up to date. However, a comprehensive test ban remains our long-term goal. Our commitment to the nuclear disarmament process has been reflected in our support for the INF treaty and START. As a depository power of the NPT, we fully support its aims. I think that—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic Adjournments).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 26th July, do adjourn until Monday 15th October.

Mr. Cryer: On a brief point of order, Mr. Speaker. I made a brief contribution to the previous debate, so I emphasise that I am not grumbling on my own behalf, but several hon. Members were not able to speak. As you know, Mr. Speaker, it used to be an open-ended debate I hope that you could perhaps use your good offices—I know that it is up to all of us, but you have more power and influence than most in this place—and bring your


influence to bear on the Procedure Committee to look at this matter. The debate is important for Back-Bench Members. For many years it has been much inferior to what it was when it was an open-ended debate. More hon. Members could speak and the debate was not rapidly curtailed.

Mr. Speaker: That matter has been sent to the Procedure Committee; that is why the procedure was changed. The hon. Gentleman might again bring it to the Committee's attention. I understand that several hon. Members were not able to be called today. That is partly due to the length of some of the speeches, which meant that not all hon. Members could speak.

Orders of the Day — Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(1) (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Orders of the Day — Runway Capacity (South-East England)

Mr. David Wilshire: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter about which I feel strongly. I applied for this debate for the simple purpose of enabling the House to discuss the Civil Aviation Authority report CAP 570, which was published last Tuesday. In essence, that report says that a new runway will be needed in the south-east of England by the year 2000. It then lists eight options for such a runway, including one at London Heathrow, which is partly in my constituency. I raise this issue and discuss that report for two reasons. First, it raises important national issues, and I believe that they will benefit from an airing before the summer recess. Secondly, some local issues greatly affect my constituents, who need to know as soon as possible that their economic future is secure and their communities will not be destroyed.
Other hon. Members will want to raise many other issues, but my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), who cannot be here tonight, sought me out to ask that I put on record that he, too, is deeply concerned by the report especially as it relates to Gatwick.
I start by explaining what I regard as the national issues involved in the report. Unless early and positive action is taken on the report, major harm will come to the United Kingdom economy. A failure to act represents a serious threat to the United Kingdom aviation industry. There is a real prospect that, after the year 2000, some United Kingdom residents will find it impossible to get flights when they want them. Those threats, which are national, extend also to London Heathrow. I make it clear that, if action is not taken at a national level, London Heathrow could find itself losing major routes and losing much of its role as a hub in the European network of routes. Large reductions of that sort are not in the interests of my constituents. I fully accept that London Heathrow must prosper, and that means that London Heathrow cannot stand still. Therefore, action simply must be taken to implement the report.
There is some urgency in addressing those national issues. Any solution has a very long lead time and the CAA requires a great deal of time to do its planning and make its preparation to bring a new runway into use.

Sir Alan Glyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be almost impossible to increase runway capacity at Heathrow, simply because of


the bottlenecks on the roads, particularly Cromwell road? Even with a rail link, that additional route cannot cope with more traffic.

Mr. Wilshire: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is worth considering whether existing runways can cope with any extra capacity and, in due course, I shall argue why an additional runway would be unacceptable at Heathrow.
An urgent decision is needed on the CAA report because, once that decision is taken, five years will be needed in which to design and build the runway, wherever it is to be situated. The year 2000 is not far away. In reply to the national issues that I have raised, I hope that the Minister will say that a runway must be built somewhere and that the working group must be given a deadline to work towards to ensure that we meet the deadline of 2000.
It is also important to spell out the local issues that concern me and my constituents. Those who live near Heathrow are threatened, as a result of the report, by about 500 extra flights a day, 36 million extra passengers a year and at least two extra terminals, over and above the possibility of terminal 5. That all adds up to a great deal of demolition, acres of concrete and tarmac, many additional large buildings in various communities, a vast amount of disruption to millions of people and huge increases in noise, pollution and the traffic to which my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn) has already referred. I believe that that is totally unacceptable in the Heathrow area.
There are always those who will say that here is yet another hon. Member standing up, advancing yet another NIMBY, "not in my back yard", argument. This is not another example of NIMBY, but a case of "not everything in my back yard". Heathrow already deals with 1,000 flights a day, 40 million passengers a year and has four terminals and every service associated with them. I am not pleading that nothing should happen at Heathrow, but we already have the lion's share.
As with the national issues, there is some urgency that a decision is arrived at on the local issues. People whose homes are threatened and who are trying to plan their future must be put out of the misery created by the report as quickly as possible. I hope that the Minister will say that his Department, in answer to the local issues that I have raised, will withdraw the Heathrow option from the list of the working group.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Hear, hear.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Certainly not.

Mr. Wilshire: It is vital to consider this issue in the context of the CAA report. That report makes it clear that we can cope with projected air traffic movements until 2000, but after that it says that demand will exceed capacity. We need to be clear about how great that extra demand will be. The report suggests that by 2005 there will be a 100 per cent. increase in passengers from 100 million today to about 200 million and the number of flights will increase by between 30 and 50 per cent. That percentage variation is based on the assumption that aircraft will get bigger.
When confronted with such statistics, the obvious first step is to try to make better use of existing facilities. Clearly there is some scope for making better use of regional airports. I know that some of my hon. Friends might mutter that Heathrow should take more passengers,

and even I accept that it might be possible to make better use of existing facilities at Heathrow. The report suggests that there is scope for an extra 30,000 air traffic movements a year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) has been saying, "Hear, hear." He might not say, "Hear, hear" to the third possibility. I believe that we should make full use of the existing potential at Stansted. I am prepared to accept that we should make some improvements at Heathrow, so I am prepared to accept that we should also make some improvements elsewhere.
We must do what we can with the existing infrastructure to try to meet some of the extra demand. But the report makes it clear that making better use of existing capacity will not be enough and that further action will have to be taken. There are only two possible practical responses to that extra demand. The first is demand management—in a word, rationing. The second is to provide extra capacity—in other words, a runway.
I am absolutely against demand management, whether it involves banning small aircraft from London, Stansted and Gatwick or pricing for the use of the London traffic management area. Either method of trying to manage demand will produce the same result. There will be less competition and that will favour the few big carriers, which will lead to higher, rather than lower fares and to less choice and less opportunity to travel. I do not believe that demand management would drive traffic to the regions. It would drive traffic abroad and that would hurt all the airports in the south-east. As I said, that would mean that people in Britain would be unable to get flights when they wanted them to destinations to which they wanted to travel.
I have said that I am against demand management, but I think that we must be clear that if there is no new runway, rationing will become inevitable, with all the harm that will flow from it. Because of that, I have to accept that a new runway in the south-east is essential—unpalatable but inevitable.

Mr. Peter Snape: But not at Heathrow?

Mr. Wells: Would my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) care to reflect on the fact that we are having this debate basically because of the failure to expand Heathrow in accordance with the original plan put forward way back in 1946, 1947 and 1948, when I lived under the approach to London airport's No. 1 runway. The failure to develop that airport has meant that we have had to develop Gatwick and Stansted. Of course, we cannot satisfy the interlining demands of a first-rate national airport at Stansted or Gatwick. That has to be done in one place—Heathrow.

Mr. Wilshire: That is an interesting train of thought, but what might have been and what is are two entirely separate issues.

Mr. Snape: Where would the hon. Gentleman put the runway?

Mr. Wilshire: I shall come to that and try to explain why it cannot be at Heathrow. I shall not join the argument whether we could have done but, as I shall now seek to show, the reality is that we now cannot. The hon.


Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is eagerly awaiting my answer to the question, "Where do we put the new runway?"

Mr. Snape: Exactly.

Mr. Wilshire: But before I answer it—I must keep the hon. Gentleman in suspense for a little longer—let me ensure that the House is clear about how the eight options emerged, because that tells us something about where we should look for the answer.
The Secretary of State started by asking the Civil Aviation Authority for a range of options—not for a preferred solution. At the moment, there is no preferred solution. The Secretary of State fixed precise terms of reference for the report—safety, airspace management and air traffic control should be considered, as should the economic interests of passengers. Then the Secretary of State gave the CAA specific guidance to the effect that no green-field sites should be involved and that the options must encourage competition.
It is important also to note what is missing from the terms of reference and the guidance. There is not a word about environmental or employment issues and not a word about local infrastructure, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead. It is clear that those are issues that the working group must address because they have not been addressed so far.
Where should we put the new runway? The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East anticipated me by saying, "Not at Heathrow." Of course it must not go to Heathrow, although I accept that that is the first choice of the passengers and the airlines. Using Heathrow for a third runway is no longer a realistic or acceptable option for those of us who represent the area and live in it. It is not realistic because of the construction work that would be involved.
The scenario runs as follows: the first step would be to demolish Harlington. The second would be to demolish Harmondsworth. Step three would be to put a pair of traffic lights on the M25 so that jumbos can trundle across it. Step four would be to organise a taxiway across the A4. The fifth step would be to organise a taxiway across two live runways so that the aircraft can get to terminal 4—all this using the most expensive land of the eight options.
The engineering problems and the difficulties that I have just listed make the whole idea of the third runway at Heathrow utterly unrealistic. It would also result in enormous environmental damage affecting more people than any of the other seven options. The employment problems that it would cause would he insurmountable, and it would spectacularly damage the local infrastructure and its ability to cope. On top of all that there are the security and safety aspects.
The environmental impact on Heathrow would be unacceptable. There would be the noise and fumes of about 185,000 additional flights. There would be the traffic and parking problems generated by 36 million more people. That sheer number of people would also have an adverse impact on the area, to judge from the 40 million people who swill round at the moment—and I have not even mentioned new terminals and car parks.
The Secretary of State has said that the working group must also consider the employment situation which at

Heathrow is already almost impossible. Fifty thousand people work at the airport and, as the need to improve security and employ more staff has shown, it is becoming ever more difficult to find additional employees. It is proving equally impossible to import them because the housing needs of people brought into the community are insoluble.
The infrastructure problems at Heathrow are grim. The M4 and the M25 are already overloaded, despite the money being spent on them. I fail to see where there is scope for additional railway lines. There are already not enough hotels and we are fast running out of space in which to build more. There is virtually no space for more housing, which would be necessary if more people worked at the airport. The local infrastructure is already overstretched and there is no scope for upgrading it.
Then there are safety and security issues, both of which underline Heathrow's unacceptability as an option. Security at Heathrow has hit the headlines more often than I care to recall. Already, 50,000 people work at the airport and 100,000 people pass through it every day. There are nine and a half miles of fencing. So the security problem is already almost unmanageable, and further upgrading it will result in massive delays. I fear that if more and more people work at and use the airport the risk of more mishaps in security will become ever greater.
The same applies to safety. More people live close to Heathrow airport than to any of the other options, so it follows that the risk of the unthinkable happening—a plane crashing on my constituents or on people living in neighbouring constituencies—will become ever greater if the airport is expanded.
Such an argument from a local Member of Parliament might sound like special pleading. In case some hon. Members are tempted to dismiss it as such I shall advance one more argument to take us back to national issues. Anyone who reads the report in detail will see that it says that a further runway at Heathrow would not solve the problems that the authors of the report were asked to address. It would be anti-competitive in the short term —and the report spells out why—and in the medium term it would fill up so quickly that we would all be back where we started. One of the key requirements set down by the Secretary of State was that the solution should boost competition, and on that ground alone the Heathrow option fails and should be removed from the list.
Where do we go from here? I should like the Minister to do two things. I hope that he will manage to accommodate my requests and those of my hon. Friends which, I suspect, are mutually exclusive. I would like him to confirm that there is a need for a new runway and that it must be met. He should remove Heathrow from the list of options. If he says that there must be and will be another runway, the working group will know exactly where it stands. It will be asked to say where the runway should go and not whether we should have one.
If the Minister spells out that there will be a new runway, that will remove the threat to the national economy, to our aviation industry and to the secure economic future of my constituents. If he deletes Heathrow from the list of options, my constituents, despite the noise of some of the night flights, will be able to sleep better because they will know that they can sell their houses and will be able to plan for a better rather than a worse future.
Any debate on where to put a new airport or which airport to expand is inevitably emotive. However much we might take a light-hearted view of the difficulties of colleagues in such debates, it presents all of us with a difficult task. That is how we balance the national and the local interests that we are here to serve. That is why I have mentioned both national and local issues and have sought to explain why both national and local interests are at stake.
In launching the debate I hope that I have demonstrated that national and local considerations point towards the creation of a new runway. I hope that I have also demonstrated that local considerations, which are obvious, and national considerations, point towards deleting Heathrow from the list of options. I urge the Minister to put it on record that he agrees with those arguments. I hope that before the end of the debate he will say that there must be a new runway and will put it on record for the sake of my constituents and many other people who live near Heathrow that a new runway at that airport is a non-starter and will be deleted from the list of options.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I fully understand the excellent advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) of a solution that suits his constituents and will solve the air traffic control problems at Heathrow. What he has said does not add up to a national policy that can properly be advanced by the Minister for Aviation and Shipping.
Britain needs an interlining airport of national and international standards, and such an airport cannot be in two places. Gatwick was a mistake and for commercial reasons the third option, Stansted, was an even greater mistake. For people who wish to change from an incoming flight to a flight to another part of the world, Europe, and in particular Britain, is well placed to provide that interlining headquarters. It will not be such a headquarters, because there are competitors on the continent, if the interlining capacity for both cargo and passengers is spread among three airports instead of one. Therefore, Heathrow must be the national flagship for interlining.
If Heathrow is to be that flagship, it must provide the facilities necessary for access by smaller airlines and feeder airlines. They must be able to come into Heathrow, interline and go out with both cargo and passengers. In that way, Heathrow would fulfil its function as an international airport.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Would my hon. Friend then close Gatwick?

Mr. Wells: Indeed, ideally Gatwick would be closed. It should never have been built.
The other unthinkable alternative is to close Heathrow. If Heathrow has the difficulty that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne described, and if his constituents are suffering so badly, the real answer to the problems of both Gatwick and Heathrow is to close both and build an airport that can serve the country properly.

Mr. Wilshire: Exactly.

Mr. Wells: That is a possibility and it is one which, of course, I shall oppose.

Mr. Wilshire: Surprise, surprise.

Mr. Wells: I understand why my hon. Friend is not surprised at that. We might consider the type of solution that was advocated in The Sunday Times last weekend. We should then throw away the major investment that has been put into Heathrow and Gatwick, but particularly Heathrow.
The terminals at Heathrow have aging plant. Terminal 4 is pretty near a disaster in modern terminal design. Terminals 1, 2 and 3, even in their refurbished form, need replacement. They are a disgrace to our nation. Passengers are not treated to the proper standard to which international passengers are accustomed. Terminals 1, 2 and 3 need to be replaced and rebuilt. From that argument, it follows that we should have a minimum terminal capacity of five terminals, so that we can relieve terminals 1, 2 and 3 while in turn they are rebuilt.
Feeder airlines will also need to come into Heathrow to feed the hub of Heathrow into Europe. That is the commercial and sensible way to proceed. There is no need to do the dramatic things that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne suggested. He suggested that we would need traffic lights on the M25 and that jumbos would have to be trundled over the M25.
There is an alternative solution. A shorter runway could be built to provide for smaller aircraft coming in from the provincial airports. In order to expand, the provincial airports require access to Heathrow. Indeed, Stansted requires access to Heathrow. The provision of a shorter runway would allow the major runways at Heathrow to be utilised more efficiently.

Mr. Wilshire: I am aware that the report suggested the alternative of a shorter runway. To set the record straight, although that would not involve the demolition of Harmondsworth and Harlington, it would involve the demolition of Sipson. Aircraft would have to take off and land through the arches of the M4-M25 junction, which would be an entertaining activity.

Mr. Wells: There is no need for such amusing and entertaining solutions to the problem. They are irrelevant, because a shorter runway could be located at Heathrow. It would involve some demolition. It would require returning to the original plan for Heathrow, to which I referred in an intervention. My hon. Friend's predecessor argued against it—hence the problems that we are in.
The plan would involve the closure of the A4 and the development of the land between the old Heston airport and across the northern area which flows from west to east across the north of Heathrow. That was the original suggestion. That would mean pulling down the Post House to provide hard core for the runway, but that would avoid having to extract gravel from my constituency. That would seem to be a practical and sensible solution in developing Heathrow.
Another problem affecting the development of the south-east's airport strategy is air traffic control. We are advised that, in respect of the 8 million passengers already authorised, Stansted airport will have difficulty in operating efficiently because of the necessary restrictions imposed on it by current air traffic control movements. The Civil Aviation Authority suggests that the real problem in the peak periods is providing sufficient capacity


in the air to allow traffic to fly south to the Mediterranean countries. That is particularly so in July and August, at the height of the holiday season.
That is not the interlining capacity that Heathrow usually provides but the kind of activity that will be seen at Stansted, and at which Gatwick is pre-eminent. It should also be taking place—and is beginning to expand there—at the northern regional airports, but at greater expense at present to the passenger.
An amazing feature of the present circumstances is that it is still cheaper for a passenger to travel down the motorway to Stansted and fly out to France or the southern coast of Spain from there, rather than take a flight from Hull, Manchester, Leeds, Bradford or Edinburgh. That must be put right, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give thought to ways of encouraging the expansion of the northern regional airports.
The real problem is of providing an additional runway for peak periods south of the London terminal area. Gatwick is one possibility, but if one turns off that option, as has been done, one must look instead to Manston, Bournemouth, Eastleigh and Bristol. In my view, that is the direction in which my hon. Friend the Minister should be moving, to avoid the current and future difficulties that confront the south-east's airport strategy.
I commend consideration of the option of expanding Heathrow to provide a proper national and international interlining airport for passengers and cargo, redeveloping its terminals, and providing a shorter runway. We shall then have a national airport of which we can be proud, for which the surrounding area of west London in which I was brought up will be proud to provide services and which is already an important source of employment. Gatwick and Stansted could then provide back-up services in peak periods and for charter traffic, while putting a new runway into operation for southern-bound aircraft to take them out of the air control area around London. Heathrow should continue to develop, to provide cheaper access for people in the north to start their flights from airports nearer their homes.

Mr. Patrick Ground: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) that we should tackle the question of providing further runway capacity. I also agree with the conclusion drawn in the CAA's report, that a new runway is required within the next 10 to 15 years. The report contains the significant warning that we should acknowledge that the need for a new runway is not likely to be diminished by packing more and more people into bigger planes. That has sometimes seemed the easiest solution for the airline industry, and that has been rejected by people as passengers, who plainly preferred different solutions: flying in smaller planes at times which are more convenient to them. The CAA report recognises that that solution is not available, which is important.
The limitations of the CAA report must be recognised in this debate. It represents two years' work. That is a somewhat sobering thought as, on its own admission, so far the authors have only considered questions of safety, airspace management and the economic interests of

passengers. The report makes it quite clear that deliberately—according to its understanding of its functions—the author did not take into account political, environmental, social or other considerations.
I welcome the comments by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when the report came out, pointing to those limitations, and emphasising the importance of environmental and other considerations, which are now to be tackled. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping for sending a letter to hon. Members who are interested in such matters emphasising that point, because it is of considerable interest and significance to those likely to be affected by the proposals.
It is difficult to know where a study on further runway capacity should start. In humility, one must recognise that it has to start somewhere. I would have wished the report to start with a broader base, and for early recognition that airports, like many other buildings and developments, have a human capacity, as well as runway and technical capacities. All over the world it is a recognised fact that airports reach an environmental capacity at which operations are simply no longer acceptable—or the extension of the airport's activities is no longer acceptable—on human grounds.
I admire the logic of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells). The design approach to airports that he mentioned has great logic, but he does not recognise the clear limitations on Heathrow which have been identified through experience.
When planning permission was granted for terminal 4 the Government made a clear promise that there would be no more terminals at Heathrow, recognising that in human terms expansion of Heathrow had reached its limit, and should not go any further. That was reinforced by the decision that, when terminal 4 opened, the number of air traffic movements at Heathrow should be limited to 275,000 a year. That number has been substantially exceeded. The runway proposals would increase movements substantially, far beyond what was recognised in the terminal 4 decision as the practical human limit for expansion at Heathrow.
It is not just a few people who are affected; hundreds of thousands of people in west London are affected by the operations at Heathrow. I therefore hope that there will be early consideration of the environmental considerations that are so important when an extension of runway capacity is considered.
I hope that the group that is considering the matter will bear in mind the fact that it is not just a question of providing runway capacity up to the year 2005 but that there will be a need for additional capacity after that. It is a somewhat sobering thought that the decision on the Stansted expansion—virtually a virgin airport—was made as recently as 1985 and that we are already talking about another runway for the south-east by 2000 or 2005.
When additional runways are needed, the studies should address environmental considerations. Those airports that ought not to be expanded for environmental reasons should be identified and withdrawn from consideration. Additional sites might then have to be looked at. The previous studies rejected green field solutions. If it is found that existing airports cannot be expanded without causing environmental problems, green field or other sites where the expansion of runway capacity might be possible ought to be considered.
I urge Ministers to take further urgent action along these lines, so that those who are affected by theoretical studies will not be frightened by them.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: It is a mistake to make light-hearted remarks in the House, because they come back to haunt one. In 1986, I assured the House that hon. Members had heard from me positively for the last time about Stansted airport, but here we go again. I suspect that this will be only the first of a series of debates on airports policy. In a sense, they are forced upon us. The Government of the day find it extremely difficult to draw back the curtain and reveal how they expect to cope with a clearly forecast demand in 10, 20 or 30 years time.
Governments prefer to say that that is looking too far ahead and they do not want to get involved in it. Using such a device, they confine the debate so that the spotlight turns on one point at a time, which is brought to the fore and decided, a further degree of expansion—be it terminal capacity or runway capacity is brought about, and so we continue. That higgledy-piggledy way of progressing has brought us to our current state.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) said, we have a three-airport solution, at least, to London's problems, which cannot be sensible, however much feeling one has for the people in the immediate vicinity of an airport.
Let us address the main question of the debate—is there a need for another runway? It is difficult to disagree with what the Civil Aviation Authority says in its report, CAP 570, and has been saying for a number of years—as would any reasonable observer of the scene—that there will be a continuing demand for air travel. No one can predict that there will be some other form of propulsion that will make airports as we know them, redundant, so we must plan for more airports to satisfy the reasonable demand of our people to travel the world. That is being brought more readily within their compass as the real cost of travel comes down and the standard of living rises. That is the problem. The Government would do a great service if they could take decisions planning for at least the middle distance, not just the near future.
It is important to analyse the need and examine what exactly it is composed of—it is not simply a question of volume. The problem is that, having made the decision to site the premier airport at Heathrow, which may not have been technically the right decision to take in the 1940s, it is that airport that competes with most of the continental interlining airports. When we speak of the competitive position of London, we do not mean the system, but principally Heathrow.
We are selling to foreign passengers the possibility of changing aeroplanes at London, Heathrow, as against Frankfurt, Schiphol or Charles de Gaulle. They will not be bussed from Gatwick to Heathrow or Stansted to Heathrow. The helicopter link between Gatwick and Heathrow, which was an attempt to marry the two airports, has been taken away, so the competitive system is at Heathrow.
If I have a criticism of the Government's position at present, it is that they pursue many reasonable civil aviation policies that simply do not fit together. I am all for competition, which is absolutely right, but it is ludicrous, in terms of scarce airport capacity, to see 10 or a dozen

times a day two small to medium-sized aircraft pursuing each other from Glasgow to London, when one aircraft could provide that service with much less demand on the scarce capacity at Heathrow.
I believe in competition, which has been a great benefit to the consumer, but it adds to the problem of scarce capacity, as does our wholly admirable policy of liberalisation. If we want to encourage more airlines into the business on more routes, a proportion of those routes will be into London, and the preference of many of the airlines will be to come into Heathrow. That is the inescapable fact with which we must deal.
If British Midland or any other airline wishes to compete with British Airways, it does not want to compete with British Airways flights from London to Brussels if its flights do not go from Heathrow. The airline will say that it is not true competition when it flies from Stansted or Gatwick to a foreign destination if the airline with which it is competing is flying from Heathrow. That is the difficulty.
If that makes us think that there is an argument for further capacity at Heathrow, we cannot wipe it away and say that it is tough luck because the people around Heathrow have had a bad time and so we shall close our mind to that argument. We must find out whether there are any ways in which Heathrow's capacity can be increased or better utilised, consistent with the policies of competition and liberalisation.
If we say that there is an absolute limit on those policies and that we are bound by promises given on Gatwick and Stansted, the only credible expansion in the south-east is Luton. I am surprised that, in its report, the CAA places such emphasis on possible restrictions of military flying from Upper Heyford, if Luton airport is increased to 40 movements per hour. We are moving into a new era in the defence needs of western Europe. I should not have thought that the American need to fly out of Upper Heyford will be of the highest importance, and we could then bring into play capacity at Luton.
We must face up to the challenge of utilising the regions better. There is a bias towards the south-east, and if the Government were to make a determined effort to say that Birmingham will play a major role in its civil aviation policy, many people could turn their cars in the direction of Birmingham and have just as short a journey as they would to one of the three London airports. I hope that the Government will consider that.
I hope that the Government will also consider whether the hub and spoke system should survive for all time. We are moving into an era when smaller aircraft than jumbos can travel long distances on so-called thin routes. If the demand for civil aviation is to increase, we should think how to exploit it by having more flights from Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester, Teesside and other airports point to point without them having to fly through London, thereby increasing the pressure on the capital's scarce airport capacity.
In that context, we should spare a thought for British Airways and its deal with Sabena and KIM. Whatever its anti-competitive aspects, it at least relieves pressure on the scarce capacity at Heathrow, and British passengers would use a partly owned British airline from Brussels instead. The Government must bear that in mind.
I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) that one of the options given by the CAA should be automatically deleted from the list at


this stage. I should be appalled if my hon. Friend the Minister were prepared to concede that. All the options must remain on the table, but I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Ground) that the wider considerations must be brought into play, such as environmental factors. Whether someone is living in packed rows of houses in an urban environment around Heathrow or delightful villages around Stansted, the environment must be taken into account.

Mr. Jessel: Or the leafy suburbs.

Mr. Haselhurst: Or the leafy suburbs.
The employment factor must be taken into account. There is full employment around each of the three principal airports. In addition, the infrastructure must be tolerable for people who live in those areas. Those are the wider issues that must be considered, and no premature decision must be taken tonight on the future options.

Mr. Toby Jessel: On one point I can concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden(Mr.Haselhurst)—that we must do more to utilise the regions in terms of airport capacity.
My hon. Friend mentioned Birmingham, but more often even than Birmingham is mentioned Manchester, and the performance of Manchester airport in recent years has been most impressive. Its traffic and number of flights have doubled in the past six or seven years. It shows every sign of increasing. It has long-distance flights such as transatlantic ones and it has numerous European destinations. There is scope for interlining there, and there is scope for interlining in other places as well. It is not essential for all the interlining to take place through one airport, as was suggested earlier in the debate.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on his success in winning the ballot for this first Consolidated Fund debate on runway capacity in the south-east. Someone has to stand up for people living under the flight paths, and my hon. Friend has done so. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Ground) has also done so, I am doing so, and I see my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Eton (Sir A. Glyn) in his place, but many other constituencies are affected, too, including Putney, Richmond and Barnes, Wandsworth, Brentford and Isleworth, Fulham, Beaconsfield, and Esher.
People living under the flight paths continue to find aircraft noise a major nuisance. It spoils the quiet enjoyment of their homes and gardens. It interrupts the work of offices, schools, hospitals and churches. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said, a thousand aeroplanes a day pass through Heathrow. It must be wrong to try to cram more and more flights through that one airport, regardless of the comfort, convenience enjoyment, peace and quiet, and health of the people living underneath. It must be said that some people do not mind very much, but many mind desperately, and they can look only to Parliament and the Government for protection.
Of course, the airlines have every right to put their point of view. Aviation interests, airlines, the British Airports Authority, the Civil Aviation Authority, aircraft manufacturers, and aero-engine manufacturers have the right to

put their points of view, but in so doing they are able to hire the services of very expensive accountants, lawyers, public relations men and high-powered executives to put their views to the media, Members of Parliament, civil servants and those responsible for taking decisions. The many people who live under the flight paths are scattered and live individually in their houses. They can form residents' associations, look to their local authorities and ask local newspapers such as the Richmond and Twickenham Times to publicise their views, but in the end it is for Parliament, and the Government, who answer to Parliament, to decide.
Only through Members of Parliament and the Government can those people be protected. In the Civil Aviation Act 1982, Parliament deliberately decided to remove the right of those people to sue aircraft owners for noise nuisance, so there is no protection other than the Government and Parliament. There is a great need for Ministers to bear that fact constantly in mind, and to be aware of it when they receive glossy literature from the aviation authority and face its blandishments. The authority has every right to put its point of view, but its view should not be expected to prevail. Parliament has an important role. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State must answer to Parliament and I hope that his reply will reflect the fact that he has taken that emphasis on board.
The Government's record so far is rather good. No Minister has a better record in protecting the environment of my constituents than my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) who, as Secretary of State for Transport, decided to refuse planning permission for the fifth terminal at Heathrow when a public inquiry inspector had recommended that it should go ahead. He also decided to impose strict restraints on the number of night flights, a decision subsequently enforced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) when he was Secretary of State and last autumn by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson). Both were merely repeating the decision already taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, who also decided to stop the Heathrow to Gatwick helicopter link. That was when the M25 was completed, making the road journey between the two places 35 to 40 minutes on a good day.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for State will make it clear that Ministers intend to be no less vigilant than my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury was in protecting the environmental interests of the people living near airports. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would give an assurance to that effect.
If you will kindly allow me two more minutes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make one more important point. It is that the time scale of 15 years in airport planning reflected in the current Civil Aviation Authority document and in the commercial policies of the British Airports Authority and the airlines ought not to be the only time scale under which the Government consider this matter. It is understandable that those aviation interests look at a time scale of 15 years for commercial reasons—accounting reasons, planning reasons, and so on—but the Government ought to look at a much longer time scale and to make it clear that they are prepared to do so.
My reason for saying that is obvious. If we go on cramming more and more aircraft through Heathrow, the time will come when it just cannot take any more, even if there is a third runway, or a sixth terminal as well as a fifth terminal. It cannot be enlarged indefinitely. The time will come when to anticipate a continuing growth in the demand for aviation must mean expansion of another major airport, so why not anticipate now? Why not plan now for that time, and look at a time scale of 20, 25, 30 or 40 years ahead rather than just the 15 years that suits the aviation industry from the commercial point of view? As there will eventually have to be expansion of other airports such as Stansted and Luton, it must make sense to anticipate that now, and not just apply a 15-year time scale which might lead one to cram more and more through Heathrow.
I should like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to confirm that he has taken note of that point, and to let me have a full and detailed written reply to it because it is a point that I wish to press and to continue pressing in the interests of my consituents and of everyone else who lives around Heathrow.

Mr. Keith Mans: I shall be brief. I hope that I can bring two qualifications to the debate. First, my interest in aviation goes back many years, if not decades; secondly, I have no personal constituency interest to declare, unlike many earlier speakers.
Reference has been made to regional airports. There is little doubt that in future such airports will play an increasing role, in this country and throughout Europe. The "spoke-to-spoke" operations mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) will probably form a much higher percentage of the total number of air movements as we proceed into the next century. I envisage a great role for Manchester, Birmingham and, increasingly, Liverpool, now that that airport is about to be privatised. North of the border, Glasgow too will have a role to play.
Let me make two points. First, I can at present see no likelihood of a regional airport policy—a policy of moving everything out to the regions—taking the place of the need for extra airport and runway capacity in the south-east. In the United States, the hubs are still there and are increasing in size, but the regional airports are growing, too. I do not envisage regional and hub airports as two separate operations; both will expand.
My second point should perhaps be directed at my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). We talk blithely about moving more flights out to the regions—to Birmingham and Manchester—but I must tell my hon.

Friend and everyone else that exactly the same environmental problems that now exist in the south-east will increasing affect those airports. Such problems will be encountered wherever a new runway is built or airport capacity increased. There is no panacea; we cannot simply say, "We will put the extra capacity at Manchester or Birmingham." We shall still run into those environmental problems.
The main question is: do we want the extra runway capacity in the south-east to be in this country or on the other side of the channel? London's fourth airport—its fifth runway—is not in Birmingham or Manchester; it is Schiphol in Holland, and in the next century it may be Charles de Gaulle. We can make a decision now and say that because of environmental considerations and because we cannot see a way of getting over the hostility of our constituents, we are prepared to see the next London airport developed on the other side of the Channel. That may well be the right solution. I am not denying that many people in the Chamber tonight would secretly like that to happen. I am not one of them. I believe that if we are to increase this country's opportunities in Europe and if we are to make certain that Heathrow remains the premier hub in Europe and remains the premier system in terms of air routes into Europe, we must look at the problem in this country. If we do not want to lose that ground to Charles de Gaulle in about 2003, by the latest calculations, we must build another runway in the south-east.
There is an interim solution and that is simply to develop Luton. I was surprised that the document we have been discussing did not give that enough attention. I shall not dwell on this point but I agree with the points made earlier. The arguments associated with TACAN holds and other technical matters associated with Upper Heyford do not hold much water. I believe that there is the possibility of developing Luton further.
Having said that we need a new runway, the big decision about where it should be has to be left to the users —the airlines and the passengers. Things may change in the next 10 or 15 years, but, at the moment, it is clear that the demand exists at Heathrow. It may be that in another five or 10 years there will be a shift towards one of the other airports in the London area, but that is not so now. Because in many ways the environmental arguments cancel each other out again and again, we have to look at what is most sensible for the users in terms of the infrastructure that already exists and the importance of making certain that the premier hub in Europe is in this country and not on the other side of the channel.
I believe in backing winners. In the air transport industry in this country we have a winner. We must not cut off its development by saying that the next decision is too difficult. We must take that decision soon.

Mr. Peter Snape: Airport capacity and the provision of new runways are contentious subject anywhere in the world. In Japan riots have taken place, in Australia at least one ministerial career has been ruined by the prospect of a new runway and, even in this normally placid Chamber, the odd eyebrow is raised from time to time at a colleague's speech. As the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) said, these decisions, hard though they may be, have to be taken and it is better to take them sooner rather than later.
I can confidently prophesy that the one certain outcome of the debate is that the decision on extra capacity will not be taken this side of the next general election. I hope that I do not sound unduly cynical when I say that. The further delay in the decision has come at a convenient time for the Government. Having sent the CAA packing with a flea in its ear because, as has been correctly pointed out, it failed to discuss or look in detail at the environmental aspects of the decision—again being cynical, it no doubt deliberately overlooked the political aspects of the decision, too—the Secretary of State's only recourse is to set up another inquiry, which I estimate will not report for about two years.
The Government's dilemma is that the pressure for extra runway capacity in the south rises year by year and will continue to do so. Hon. Members who represent constituencies around existing airports will, for very good reasons, continue to oppose expansion in their areas. The other leg of the triangle that has not been mentioned tonight is the fact that in the south of England the principal airport operator is the BAA which, alongside the Department of Transport, will be most anxious not to take a short-term decision because it wants to maximise the use of its existing assets. We do not envy the Minister who is to reply to this debate, no doubt as adroitly as ever. Nor do we envy his boss, the Secretary of State for Transport, who at least will be held accountable for failing to take the decision this side of a general election.
Another aspect of aviation policy that has not been mentioned in the debate is the contribution that the Government and their policies have made to congestion in the south and the likely worsening of that congestion over the next decade. The Government have made great play about their policy of deregulation in connection with Europe. The present Secretary of State for Transport, like some of his predecessors, lectures the rest of Europe about the desirability of freedom in the air and how that freedom will lead to reduced costs for passengers and will also be enormously beneficial for the aviation industry. One of the obvious consequences of that freedom in the air is that there will be even more pressure on airports, particularly in the south of England. If we consider examples from elsewhere in the world, it is clear that there will be even more aeroplanes in the short term many of which will be smaller planes operating feeder routes, a point which was made by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells).
Many of the smaller planes will be anxious to connect with international flights from Heathrow. An inevitable consequence of a relaxation of aviation regulations, particularly in the short term if the American experience is anything to go by, is that there will be more pressure on airports, particularly in the south, and especially for those anxious to interline from Heathrow.
Other transport aspects of the decision have not been referred to and the Government should consider them. I raise those matters now to help the Government in their dilemma. The great problem in our aviation industry, as in others, is that we look at the industry in isolation. We do not look at the overall transport picture in this country. Reference has been made to Charles de Gaulle airport and its success in the 1990s and into the next century. No small part of that success stems from the fact that it will soon be part of the French railway network, the SNCF, and will soon have high-speed trains picking up and delivering passengers at the airport.
In the United Kingdom, particularly under this Government, we plan our transport systems in isolation. We are now belatedly proposing a rail link to Heathrow which will be built by the BAA and operated by British Rail. I believe that that is exactly the wrong way to do it. It will run only from Heathrow to Paddington and, to put it at its mildest, that is not likely to reduce congestion at Heathrow, by any stretch of the imagination. However, we appear to be some way off taking a decision to build cross-London rail links that would at least connect airports such as Heathrow with airports like Stansted.
We have belatedly given the go-ahead for a rail link to Manchester airport. That link will serve only the north of England. It will not connect Manchester airport with the InterCity rail network. The only major regional airport that is directly connected to Britain's already inadequate InterCity railway route is Birmingham international airport.
Unless we draw together all those various transport strands, pressure, in particular for flights within the United Kingdom and in the south of England, will grow enormously in the 1990s. Again, belatedly, the Government have recognised the problems that their gateway policy has caused over the years with flights from regional airports to the United States. They have lifted their requirement, and there will be flights from Birmingham and an increased number of flights from Manchester to the United States. That will do something, but only a small amount, to relieve congestion at Heathrow. It is too little and it is probably too late.
Even at this stage, bearing in mind that the Minister must satisfy his hon. Friends' conflicting views, I hope that he will take back the message that some concerted Government action is needed.
I hesitate to use the word "integration" because it has been done to death, especially by my own political party. There certainly must be some way of co-ordinating transport requirements in the United Kingdom if we are to get away from the nonsense of flying passengers from our regional airports into the busiest international airport in the world simply because, for understandable reasons, a combination of airlines and Governments are not prepared to sanction direct flights from our regional airports.
I do not share the gloomy view of the prospects of our regional airports that the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) took. There must be greater involvement of other transport modes. Again, an example was set in West Germany, where Lufthansa operates high-speed trains between German airports because of the problems of interlining and congestion that have already been mentioned.
I do not envy the Minister. He would not expect me to proffer—

The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): The hon. Gentleman does not have any answers.

Mr. Snape: The Minister says that I do not have any answer. Like the Irishman who was asked for directions, I would not have started from here. We have had 11 years of Conservative aviation policy. I remind Conservative Members that the fact that, after all those years, we are in this mess reflects directly on the policies that successive Conservative Secretaries of State have followed. You will have to forgive me, Mr. Speaker, for concluding my remarks by saying I told you so.

The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I almost feel like starting by saying, "I surrender," having listened to my hon. Friends' comments. We have to try to strike a tricky balance. I was interested by the comment of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), who said that he would not start from here. In the unlikely event of his party forming a Government, he would have to start from somewhere. We heard nothing from the hon. Gentleman about what a Labour Government would propose or do, but we should not be surprised at his attitude.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on his success in the ballot. I previously thought that he had secured a peak hour slot. I did not realise that we would have three statements, which meant that my hon. Friend did not get the peak hour slot. However, this is a difficult and sensitive topic and it is vital to all my hon. Friends who have spoken and many others.
I was struck by the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans), who said, "I wholly agree with all those hon. Members who spoke about the great importance of our regional airports in providing capacity. I do not understand why people from the very north of the United Kingdom must come to London when such flights should be available from their own areas." I agree with my hon. Friend that, were we to suggest developing the strengths of the regional airports, we would hear similar arguments to those expressed by my hon. Friends for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells).
Hon. Members have focused their remarks on the Civil Aviation Authority's advice in its report on long-term airport needs—CAP 570—delivered to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week, and on the statement that my right hon. Friend made on receipt of it. It is important to put that report in context.
The Government's airport policy was last set out in full in the 1985 White Paper of that name. It described how the developments then in hand or planned should provide sufficient capacity to meet demand in the south-east into the mid-1990s. In particular, the White Paper looked to Stansted to take its place as London's third main airport. Hon. Members who have visited Stansted will know that the new terminal now nearing completion is superb. When it opens next March it will certainly put Stansted firmly on the international airports map.
Forecasts of growth in air travel remain very buoyant, and the lead times for airport development are notoriously long— Stansted's new terminal will open its doors 10 years

after the public inquiry got under way. It became clear that there was a need to roll forward the strategy outlined in the 1985 White Paper, in the light of developments in the industry—notably pressure on airspace, the approaching advent of the channel tunnel, the gathering pace of aviation liberalisation, and the privatisation of the former British Airports Authority as BAA plc. In July 1988, therefore, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), then Secretary of State for Transport, commissioned the CAA to advise on the adequacy of United Kingdom airport capacity in the longer term, through to 2005.
By 1988 it had already become clear that the immediate problem was pressure on air traffic control capacity. This is not something peculiar to the United Kingdom. In commissioning advice from the authority, the Government therefore asked it to take account of runway, terminal and airspace constraints, and at ways in which those could be tackled.
We also asked that the authority's advice should take the form of a report on possible responses to forecast demand, expressed as a range of options, so that we could then take account of the wider implications. I should perhaps stress that point, because some of the press reports have expressed surprise that the CAA has not come forward with a single option. I stress that that was never the intention, as was clear from the start and despite what the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East said.
The CAA's work has taken two years, during which time it has consulted widely. When the authority offered its advice last July on London traffic distribution, it also reported on larger airport capacity. In CAP 548 it identified the need for new runway capacity to serve the south-east, and it explained in its progress report that an important part of its continuing work was a complex analysis, with computers, of the airspace and air traffic control implications of possible locations for runway capacity. That was clearly sensible—if considerations of airspace management ruled out the provision of runway capacity in an area, there would clearly be no point in looking at that area any further.
Again, I should underline this aspect of the CAA's work because, despite what the CAA said last July, it seems not to have been appreciated in some quarters. The CAA was never intended to examine the wider implications of the different locations at which it was looking—it has focused on the critical air traffic control aspect.
The CAA advised last July that its own experience suggested that the development of a major airport on a completely new site in the south-east was unlikely to be either a realistic or an acceptable option. We agreed with that view, and so did not ask the authority to extend its airspace studies to cover this.
In CAP 570, delivered to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week, the CAA has refined its estimates of when additional runway capacity to serve the south-east will be needed, and puts the date at about 2005. I hope that that answers the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne—yes, the CAA has said that we shall need a new runway around 2005. It is notoriously difficult to forecast just how air traffic will grow and distribute itself, and so it became necessary to best estimate.
My hon. Friend may ask, "Why do we not plan that much further ahead?" It is very difficult to plan further


than 15 years ahead for what might happen in air traffic movements and air traffic capacity. It would be difficult to try to give guesstimates for 25 years hence, for example.
The CAA has looked carefully at the contribution to be expected of regional airports. That is right—

Mr. Jessel: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. McLoughlin: I would rather not because of the pressure of time.
That is an important aspect. All too often, the regional airports are dismissed as though they were a minor factor in the debate. That is quite wrong; on that, I agree with all those hon. Members who have spoken today. To take the most obvious example, Manchester airport is a major world airport by any standards. Birmingham and Glasgow are internationally significant airports. I entirely agree that Birmingham has tremendous infrastructure capabilities, and it has been developed using private capital, which I wholly welcome. I wish that Manchester would follow the same route.
We should not play down the importance of regional airports. The Government are keen to see them prosper, and they will prosper all the more when they try to attract private capital into the facilities that they offer the public. I am encouraged by the way in which they are responding to demand—which, it has to be said, is increasing partly as a result of the liberalisation that the Opposition so despise. Much development is in hand at Manchester and Birmingham and at Glasgow—an airport run by the British Airports Authority. My Department forecasts that the regional airports' share of all traffic will increase significantly in the coming years faster than that of the London airports. I welcome that, because I welcome the opportunity to travel from my own regional airport to the destinations that I want to visit rather than having to come to London first. There is no difference between us on the importance of regional airports.
The CAA's traffic modelling shows that once the existing runway capacity of the south-east has been used up, the number of passengers lost—those who will not fly —will rise sharply, even if capacity is assumed to be available at regional airports. The CAA concludes that providing extra capacity at the regional airports would not, therefore, be an effective substitute for additional capacity in the south-east. That is an important judgment and it will be right to have it fully tested, as we certainly hope to do.
The CAA's examination of the air traffic control arrangements has led it to identify eight possible options for the provision of the runway capacity needed to meet our future needs. It has also given its advice on the options

most likely to be attractive to passengers and in terms of airlines competition. But the air traffic control and aviation aspects are only part of the jigsaw, albeit an important part. The CAA chairman, Sir Christopher Tugendhat, recognised this in his covering letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in which he observed that wider factors will now have to be considered. Hon. Members have highlighted the importance of those considerations—if, indeed, they needed highlighting.
I am afraid that I cannot say to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, who so ably introduced the debate, that I can wholly rule out Heathrow. If I did that, my hon. Friends who have spoken on behalf of other areas would ask me wholly to rule out their airports as well. That is not the way forward. The way forward is to do as the Government have done—to set up a working group. [Laughter.] It is easy for Opposition Members to mock—we are used to that, but they never come forward with any constructive suggestions.
I will now say something about United Kingdom airports in general. In recent months, there have been some comments about the dire consequences that would result if the United Kingdom lost its prominent position in European civil aviation through the inadequacy of the airports infrastructure. Such talk is unnecessarily gloomy. I have observed on several occasions that plans are fine briefly—but that bricks and mortar are better.
It is not surprising that some of our European partners should be making efforts to catch up, but the United Kingdom can point to new developments now in place or soon to be made. A new terminal opened at Heathrow in 1986; London City airport opened 1987; a new terminal opened at Gatwick in 1988; a completely redeveloped Heathrow terminal 3 was opened by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State two months ago. A fine new terminal will open at Stansted, in March; another is due to enter service at Birmingham in 1991; and another at Manchester in 1993. By any standards, that is an excellent record of achievement. While others talk, we get on with the job.
There is no question of any complacency in the Government, but rather every sign of rising to the challenge, and that challenge continues. It is evident that any responsible Government must address the issues that this brings, difficult though they certainly are. And that is what we are doing, first in commissioning advice from the CAA, now in making plans to take that advice forward.
I think that I have said everything about our approach to this important and difficult matter. It is important, clearly, because international aviation has come to play a central role in all countries' economic fortunes—

In accordance with MR. SPEAKER'S ruling—[Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. 19]—the debate was concluded.

Crime Figures

11 pm

Mr. Peter Archer: I greatly regret that it has fallen to me to initiate this debate. You, Mr. Speaker, will recollect that the name that emerged from the original ballot was that of my former hon. Friend, the late Member for Bootle (Mr. Carr). We would have listened to him with the attention that we had all hoped his contributions to our debates would have commanded for many years to come. His tragic death has deprived us of that opportunity. As it happens, I had made an application for a debate on the same topic, and I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for permitting the ballot to be taken again.
I invite the House to consider the crime statistics published by the Home Office at the end of June. In the first quarter of this year, the number of crimes recorded by the police was 1,081,000—the highest quarterly figure ever recorded. Theft had increased since the previous quarter by 16 per cent., burglary by 18 per cent., violence against the person by 4 per cent., robbery by 2 per cent.
The Home Office statistical department made the point —not surprisingly—that quarterly figures are subject to wide variations. Better, it said, to look at the annual figures. Let us do so. In the 12 months to the end of March 1990, 4 million crimes were recorded—an increase of 9 per cent. on the previous 12 months. Burglaries were up by 8 per cent., criminal damage by 8 per cent., thefts of motor vehicles by 16 per cent., thefts from motor vehicles by 7 per cent., violence against the person by 10 per cent., sexual offences by 8 per cent., and robberies by 5 per cent. In the past 10 years, crime levels have risen by 50 per cent.
These are truly appalling figures in terms of the suffering, the inconvenience and sometimes the downright misery of human beings which they represent. They tell a tragic story. The increase in crime is a cause of fear and anxiety, even among people who have not yet been its victims. A recent poll in the Observer showed that the single most important issue which concerns the public is the breakdown of law and order.
In the area I represent, which will be known to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, women and elderly people are afraid to go out of doors at night. The Minister may explain to them that statistically they are less at risk than certain other groups. Elderly people, he may say, are not very likely to be attacked on the streets or to find their houses burgled when they return to them, but while violence and burglary are manifestly on the increase, statistical explanations are no substitute for a beat policeman. They expect the Government to do something about it.
In 1979, the Conservative party paraded itself as the party of law and order. When the Labour Government were in power, the Conservatives did not hesitate to lay at their door responsibility for crime. In practice, they have presided over a massive increase in criminal offences. I suspect that later this year the Conservative party conference will be told that the Government propose to deal with crime by introducing further deterrent sentences. As the Minister of State knows, I am always willing to discuss penal policy and wish that we had more opportunities to discuss it in the House. But that is not my purpose in this debate.
The British people are not concerned to see more criminals serving longer sentences: they want fewer crimes to be committed. There is ample scope for a debate on the increase in opportunities for fraud and other economic crimes, but in the limited time that is available, I shall suggest just two steps that would make our streets and homes safer. The first is to make more police available to combat crime. Year by year, we hear of police authorities requesting authorisation for increases in strength and consistently receiving it for fewer officers than they asked for. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that pattern is constantly reiterated in the west midlands.
In 1988–89, the West Midlands police authority sought an increase of 350 officers; it was given 70. In 1989–90, it sought 350 and was given 62. In 1990–91, it again requested an increase of 350, and was given 63. Anyone looking at those figures might think that the police authorities were drawing up vacancies for officers who had no functions to perform and that the additional strength would sit about in police canteens. Those requests are made after careful calculation of the work to be done and the manning levels required to do it. Again and again, the Home Office ignore the police authorities and authorise additions substantially lower than the number requested.
When the Minister replies, he will no doubt be armed with a departmental brief on the numbers of police officers who have in fact been authorised. Those who are hungry for bread are grateful for a small proportion of a loaf, but I hope that the Minister, with his usual fairness, will set those instances against two other sets of figures.

Mr. Keith Vaz: My right hon. and learned Friend is damning the Minister's career.

Mr. Archer: My hon. Friend questions the Minister's sense of fairness. I do not wish to quarrel with the Minister: I am trying to persuade him because, in the past, he has been open to persuasion.
I hope that the Minister will set against the increases two sets of figures. The first is the reduction that most authorities have had to impose on police overtime. Increases in staffing are of little value if they are paid for by reductions in overtime. Secondly, they need to be set against the increase in the number of jobs that the police are now required to carry out, some of which are welcome. The increased requirements in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 are very much in the interests of justice. However, they make additional demands on police time. The work carried out by the police in neighbourhood community relations, in visiting schools and attending liaison committees is an important step in improving relations with the public. But such work cannot be done on the cheap; it requires additional police manpower.
We all support schemes in which the police and the public work together to combat crime. Neighbourhood watch schemes have helped to prevent even higher crime figures, but we are told by Crime Concern that the limiting factor on the expansion of those schemes is resources.
New circumstances and new perceptions have evoked the need for additional duties. Special units are rightly being established to cope with child abuse. Police are becoming more involved in support work with victims. But all those new activities take up the time of police officers. Some jobs have been created unnecessarily by the Government. They provoked an ambulance strike, during which the police had to carry out duties that did not fall


within their normal work. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), had wished to intervene, I should have given way.
Many police were deflected from their normal duties by problems in the prison service. The public want to see an increase in the number of police officers on the beat, on the streets where they can keep an eye on potential crime before it is committed. The public instinct is right about that. That would probably be the most important single factor in reducing crime.
The other way in which the Government could make a real difference is by activating and co-ordinating programmes of crime prevention among local authorities. They might include a programme to improve street lighting, to improve the design and layout of local estates, to provide security watch on shopping precincts and public recreation areas. That would transform our towns. They would be and would be perceived to be places where people could go out, even at night, with confidence.
Such matters are surely best left to the elected representatives. They know the areas. They are familiar with what is happening there. They know what people have to say about those matters day in, day out. But the Government's contribution is progressively to deprive local authorities of a greater proportion of their resources. Local authorities have lost £20 billion as a result of changes in rate support grant. Even a proportion of that could have transformed law and order. The Prime Minister's obsessive feud with local authorities is more important to her than safety on the streets.
My party proposes to make it an obligation to include crime prevention in local authority development plans and the criteria for planning decisions. A partnership between local councils, community groups and the police could create a wholly different environment. In my constituency, many elderly people still live in blocks of flats which do not have security doors to prevent all and sundry from using the hallway as a short cut. Windows and doors are still without burglar-proof locks. A little expenditure on those items would prove an important investment in reducing crime.
If to all that, we could add a youth programme which would provide for many of our young people an alternative to wandering around the streets with virtually nothing to do, we could break through the circle in which crime is taken for granted by both those who see themselves as potential victims and those who see crime as the way of life of their peer group. If young people could be persuaded that there are better ways of spending their time, the crime figures would look very different.
I am not crying for the moon. I do not believe that we can abolish crime. There will remain a nucleus of hard professional criminals. There will always be family quarrels. There will be those who are mentally disturbed in ways that lead them to commit offences. There is no single reason why people commit crimes. There is no single way of deterring them or preventing them. But there are some sensible ways which would add up to a safer and happier life for thousands of people. I believe that they would be willing to pay for it.

Mr. David Tredinnick: I welcome this opportunity to discuss crime figures, and as a Member representing a Leicestershire constituency, I intend to draw on some of that county's experiences. First, perhaps I may tell my right hon. Friend the Minister how welcome is the increased manpower of 53 police posts for Leicestershire announced late last year.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I am much obliged.

Mr. Tredinnick: Ninety per cent. of all the posts approved across the country are for operational duties, and the same applies to Leicestershire. It is a great credit to the county's police that they have successfully undertaken the civilianisation programme, which enabled my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister to view favourably the county's application.
Leicestershire police have faced considerable problems over the past few months. They include three major murder inquiries and a terrorist bomb explosion in Leicester. They have diverted police manpower from ordinary crimes—if one can call them that—and made their task more difficult. Despite those increased commitments, the number of arrests increased during the first quarter of 1990 compared with the same period last year. That is reflected in the increase of 971 detected crimes —a 21·6 per cent. increase over the first quarter of 1989.
In addition, a further 1,338 offences were admitted, and that is reflected in the improvement in the number of detected crimes after the offenders were sentenced. They numbered 335-or 30 per cent. more than during the same period last year.
Although detection rates increased, so was there a general rise in crime, which is extremely worrying. By comparison with the same quarter last year, the crime rate has risen by 34 per cent. However, if one compares that with the previous quarter of October to December 1989, the increase is only 10·4 per cent.
Rural areas, such as large parts of my own constituency of Bosworth, which covers the rural hinterland to the north of Hinckley, around Coalville, and Melton and in Rutland generally there has been an increase in crime of under 20 per cent. over the past 12 months. However, of all the problems that confront the police, perhaps the most difficult for them, and among the most disturbing for the public, is the tremendous increase in auto crime. The explosion in that type of offence has, I believe, distorted to a large extent the increased crime that the general statistics show.
One of the reasons for that trend is that the county has no secure accommodation for juveniles. There are frequently instances of youths who have committed auto crimes being arrested but then released because they cannot be held. I refer to two accidents in particular in the county—

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will the hon. Gentleman develop that theme a little further? Can he tell the House not only about the absence in Leicestershire of secure accommodation but how many bail hostels and bail


schemes exist there? Is he telling the House that the answer to crime in his county is to lock up more children? Is that the hon. Gentleman's policy and that of his Government?

Mr. Tredinnick: The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) will be able to make his own speech, but I am grateful to him for that intervention.

Mr. Sheerman: How many bail hostels are there in Leicestershire?

Mr. Tredinnick: What I am saying is what I am saying. The hon. Member will be able to make his own speech, but he has highlighted an important fact: why do we not have secure accommodation in Leicestershire? I assure him that I shall return to that point in a moment and I am most grateful to him for highlighting it.
Their have been two serious accidents in Leicestershire which resulted from joy-riding in cars. In April, near Melton, four people were killed in a terrible accident at Frisby—two youngsters in a hotted-up Ford and two adults in a Honda. One youth was due to appear in court but had been released. It is fair to say that very often youths who have committed 20 or 30 offences are still able to return home as they cannot be held in secure accommodation.
In the second accident at Charnwood, another youth was killed in what was obviously a serious accident. I draw those two examples to the attention of the House as an illustration of how serious accidents can occur involving youths who have committeed prior offences but are not secured.
In my constituency, we have a particular problem with joy riders who come out of the city of Leicester to villages such as Desford, Ratby, Groby and Anstey, take cars, drive them around, damage them and perhaps wreck them. It not surprisingly causes a tremendous amount of resentment in my constituency.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield referred to the reasons for the lack of secure accommodation. I am delighted to enlighten him. When the Conservatives held control of the county council, until 1981, there was an establishment called Polebrook house, at Botcheston, which had been specially fitted out as secure accommodation at considerable cost. When the Conservatives lost control of the county in 1981, the first act of the Labour and Liberal parties was to close that institution down, which not only deprived the county of Leicestershire of secure accommodation, but also broke a commitment to Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire which is quite disgraceful. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Knight) who is a Whip and by convention not able to speak, is expressing his concern for his constituents.
The Labour Party is directly responsible for the increase in crime in Leicestershire because, when we lost control of the county in 1981, Labour councillors made the fatal decision to do away with the secure accommodation for the county. That is quite disgraceful. I hope that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) will have something to say about it later when he is called to speak.
Some excellent initiatives have been taken to combat motor crime. One is the initiative taken by the police to persuade car manufacturers to make cars more secure. I understand that there is a specific problem with Ford cars

—especially the XR2 and the Fiesta, which are seen as easy targets. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Leicester. East may laugh, but these are the facts.
The chief constable has invited representatives of the Ford Motor Company to the county to discuss ways to make those cars more secure. Hon. Members may be aware that Vauxhall have recently made their cars more difficult to break in to, and I think that hon. Members will agree that that is a most welcome development.
The chief constable suggested recently that sports accommodation should be made available free during school holidays. The suggestion has great merit. I hope that the county councillors will consider it carefully— [Interruption.]—not for this year, because it would take time to implement, but for future years. [Interruption.]

Mr. John Patten: My hon. Friend will be aware of cries from Opposition Members, from a sedentary position, that the Government should give money. Is my hon. Friend aware that local authorities of all political colours —Avon, Staffordshire and Humberside—are doing exactly what my hon. Friend wishes his own local authority to do, that they are doing it successfully with local resources, and well done them?

Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's intervention. It is a creative idea. If we can make better use of our resources, surely that is good for those who live in cities and who may not enjoy the recreational facilities that are available in rural areas. Young people are naturally effervescent and full of energy. They want exciting and interesting things to do. It would be far better to get them off the streets by encouraging them to play football and to make use of existing facilities. I very much commend the chief constable's idea. I am sure that it will be carefully considered.

Mr. Archer: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that local authorities should provide additional facilities from diminishing resources?

Mr. Tredinnick: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must have misheard what both my right hon. Friend the Minister and I said. We are not arguing for additional resources—

Mr. Archer: But additional resources will be needed.

Mr. Tredinnick: It is a fatal flaw in Labour's philosophy to assume that all changes require increased expenditure. It highlights the difference between the two parties. We ask that existing resources should be opened up. Perhaps they could be used by volunteers. We do not suggest that a lot more money should necessarily be, made available. However, we think that resources should be better used. It is extraordinary if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is arguing against that.
Noise is a problem that has not been sufficiently addressed by my right hon. Friend and I ask him to consider it. The police are trying to stop very noisy parties, but they are faced with a major problem. I believe that the powers contained in the Public Order Act 1986 are inadequate. If there is a breach of the peace in Scotland, general powers are available to the police to enable them to apply sufficient pressure so that individuals on private premises desist from making noise. They can make arrests.
However, in England the police are frequently laughed at by those who hold noisy parties. That is a serious flaw in the law which my right hon. Friend must address.
There are inexcusable delays in bringing cases to trial in magistrates courts. In Leicestershire on occasions youths appear in court perhaps one month after the offence has been committed. It is impossible to hold them in secure accommodation because it is not available. In the intervening period, therefore, it is possible for them to commit a wide range of offences, particularly motoring offences. That issue, together with the others I have raised, must be addressed.
Leicestershire is grateful for the increase in its police manpower. I have demonstrated that the police, working hard, have increased the detection rate but that the increase in crime means that we face a problem. That is largely due to the increase in auto crimes which are committed by youths who cannot be held in secure accommodation while they are waiting for their case to be dealt with in court. The provision of secure accommodation was sabotaged in 1981 by the incoming administration for the county when it took over from the Conservatives. It is perfectly clear to me, and I am sure to my right hon. Friend the Minister, that a large part of the problem of crime in Leicestershire can be laid fairly and squarely at the door of the Opposition parties.

Mr. Keith Vaz: I begin by joining in the tribute that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Carr), in whose name the motion originally stood. I last saw my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle last Thursday. He spent some of his time as an hon. Member in the corridor where I work. I and other Members were shocked to hear of his death. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West for initiating the debate and for ensuring that it remained on the Floor. Those of us who wished to participate did so because we regard the issue of the record crime figures that we have received as being of major importance. I cannot think of another issue in my constituency, apart from the cuts in the national health service, that is of more concern to the people of Leicester, East.
I pay tribute to the chief constable of Leicestershire, Michael Hirst, to his deputy, Peter Blaker, and to the assistant chief constable, Malcolm Cairns, for the excellent work that they do on behalf of the people of Leicestershire. They work under tremendously difficult conditions and I shall explain why I disagree with what the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) said about police person power. I believe that they work with the prospect of Government policies, under the present Government, that have increased the amount of crime in Britain and Leicestershire. Those of us who live in the city of Leicester owe a debt of gratitude, not just to senior police officers, but to all the police officers working at the police stations, be they at Charles street, Syston or Uppingham road.
Those in the local community who say that morale in the police is low do not do so as a means of attacking or criticising the police, but because they are deeply concerned because morale is low and the crime figures are

so high. They expect the Government and the Home Secretary to come forward with additional resources that will make their lives easier.
We live in a time of record lawlessness. It is extraordinary that a party which came to office 11 years ago as the party of law and order should be presiding over the worst crime figures that the country has ever known. According to the statistical bulletin of the Home Office, published on 28 June 1990, in the first quarter of 1990 the police recorded 1,081,000 offences—the highest crime figures ever recorded in Britain. All the panache, skill and polish of the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), at the Dispatch Box today cannot argue away those figures.
I am surprised that the Minister of State is in his place. After the Government reshuffle I expected that we would see a different Minister. I had heard that the Minister was regarded as such a rising star that he would now be in the Cabinet, but even with all his potential Cabinet skills he cannot argue away those disgraceful and appalling figures.
I remind the hon. Member for Bosworth that in the first quarter of 1989, 12,830 offences were notified and reported to the police in Leicestershire. In the first quarter of 1990, the figure was 17,111—an increase of 33 per cent. The number of thefts of motor vehicles have gone up by 61 per cent. The amount of theft from vehicles has gone up by 41 per cent., and criminal damage has increased by 40 per cent. We have never known such appalling figures. If one divides the number of crimes by the number of minutes in a hour to create a crime clock, one crime is committed every minute in Leicestershire. The debate has been going on for 34 minutes, and 34 crimes have been committed. That is an indictment of Government policy.
I know what the hon. Member for Bosworth said about extra police officers. I say to him, "Get off your knees." To say that the number of extra police officers has satisfied either the people of Leicestershire or its chief constable is to turn a blind eye to the truth and to fact. He knows that all-party delegations have been to see the Home Secretary. There has been a debate in the Chamber, in which hon. Members from both sides of the House took part, although I think that the hon. Member for Bosworth was not available on that date and did not take part in it.

Mr. Tredinnick: indicated dissent.

Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman did take part, so he will recall that hon. Members argued for additional police officers. Yet he is prepared to accept half the number of police officers for which hon. Members pressed the Home Secretary. I am not prepared to accept that for my constituents. We accepted the demands for additional police officers made by the chairman of the police committee, Robert Angrave, who is a member of the Conservative party. The committee had to accept less, but I want the best for my constituents.

Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as he did not attempt to intervene in my speech. I have been misrepresented by what he has just said. I welcomed the increase, but I did not say that it was an ideal number. Of course one would like more officers, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. and learned Friend have made a welcome increase.

Mr. Vaz: The record will show that the hon. Gentleman said that he was grateful to the Minister—that he was delighted with what he had received. He did not say that he wanted additional officers. He was prepared to accept second best for the people of Bosworth, but we are not prepared to do that.
The policing crisis in Leicestershire is demonstrated by the crime figures. Almost every day, my office in Leicester receives calls from people in Humberstone, Thurnby Lodge, Evington or Belgrave—important parts of my constituency—complaining about the lawlessness of the area, especially night crime.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West rightly said that the elderly, women and, indeed, young people are afraid to go out at night for fear of being attacked. The Minister of State may smile at those figures, but elderly people are afraid to go out. My mother, who is 64, despite the fact that she is a city councillor and might therefore be expected to be slightly more aggressive than the average citizen, is afraid to go out at night in Scraptoft lane for fear of being attacked. The same applies to many elderly people. Because of the Government's policies, they have become prisoners in their own homes —afraid to answer the door, to go out and see friends and to take part in the normal social intercourse that one would expect.
The police received a call from Goodwood. Mr. Syd Rimington, chairman of the local tenants association, rang up about the number of youths who had congregated outside 17 Gamel road, the tenants association headquarters, vandalising properties and upsetting local residents. The police, because they are stretched and do not have the necessary resources, were unable to respond to the calls that were made. I make no criticism of the way in which the police operate—they cannot deal with the problem because they do not have enough officers.
What is the Government's answer? I will tell the Minister of State something that he perhaps did not know. Two weeks ago, the Home Secretary escaped from London and ended up at Leicester university. He came to address the Crime Concern conference. I declare an interest as a member of the national board of that organisation and I, too, spoke at the conference. The Home Secretary arrived, puffing at his cigar and drank a glass of sherry. He told the assembled journalists what he regarded as the cause of crime.
According to the headlines in the Leicester Mercury, the right hon. and learned Gentleman told us that there was more to steal. He said that we had to put up with the increasing level of crime—[Interruption.] The Minister of State nods. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that we had to put up with the increasing level of crime because the Prime Minister had made us more prosperous, that because we live in a more prosperous society we have to accept that there will be more crime. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was therefore condemning us all to a life of poverty if we want to get away from the record figures that the Government have produced. That is what the Home Secretary told astonished journalists, who could not believe that someone of such seniority could make such statements.
I greeted the Home Secretary as I greet all Home Secretaries when they come to Leicester—with a warm handshake and a petition. The petition was signed by 250

members of the public and collected in just 30 minutes by people who wanted more police officers and wanted the Government to take action to limit crime.
I agree with the support that the hon. Member for Bosworth has given to the chief constable's scheme to cut youth crime by means of free sport and leisure initiatives. That is the correct approach. We need to ensure that the local authority's facilities are made available for young people so that they occupy their time in that way instead of vandalising cars and so on, but such schemes cannot be paid for without the Government's support. I am all for allowing young, middle-aged and old people to use the leisure facilities in my city, but the city council cannot afford to pay for that. I am sure that the council will go aong with the scheme and support the chief constable, provided that the Minister of State backs the proposal. The Minister said in an intervention that he supported it. I hope that he can say that he is prepared to have a word with the Chancellor, or with the Secretary of State for the Environment, about providing the resources needed to pay for the scheme.
The people of Leicester have to put up with a poll tax of £405 because the local authority has to ensure that the spending commitments that it has agreed and on which it was elected are paid for. Unless the hon. Member for Bosworth is suggesting that the poll tax should be even higher, I believe that the only way that the money can be obtained is through Government assistance.
New and modern police stations are needed in Leicester and Leicestershire. Last week, I had a meeting with Earl Ferrers to discuss the position of Hamilton police station in Leicester. A new township has been built in the eastern part of the city. It was proposed that the divisional headquarters of the Leicestershire police, eastern region, should be moved from Syston, where it is now based in unsuitable accommodation, to the new site of Hamilton. The local authority has made a three-acre site available and is ready and willing to allow the police to occupy it. Although Earl Ferrers gave permission a couple of years ago for the establishment of the police station, this year he announced that he could not put the bid for the new Hamilton police station into the allocation for 1992–93. When I saw him last week, he said that it was unlikely that the funds would be allocated for 1993–94 and that we would have to wait for 1995–96 for any prospect of the new police station.
If we are to ensure that the police are near the people, it is vital that the new police station at Hamilton should be built. If the Minister can tell me that there is a prospect of that happening, I make this appeal to him—will he support, in the interim, the opening of the Uppingharn road police station, which now services the eastern part of the city, on a full-time basis? The chief constable has said that it cannot be opened on such a basis, because the Hamilton station is to be built, but as we have been informed that it will not be built until at least 1995, may we have an assurance that the Minister will support our request to the chief constable for those additional hours for the Uppingham road station? If we are serious about decentralisation, we should remember that that is one way in which it can be achieved.
We must enter an era in which a partnership against crime will be allowed—a partnership between central Government, local government and the people. At present, local authorities are eager to enter into a dialogue with the


people and the local police force to ensure that the crime figures are reduced—the missing factor is political commitment from the Government.
I hope that when the Minister of State replies—I am sure that, as in the past, he will cast aside his Home Office brief and approach the Dispatch Box without notes in his usual confident way—he can give us the good news that the Government will provide the money for the new police station and will give Leicestershire the extra resources that we need to defeat the evil of crime.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: First, I add my voice to the tributes paid to Mike Carr, the Member of Parliament for Bootle, who so sadly died last week. I, too, spoke to him on Thursday evening about this debate. He had decided to make home affairs his speciality, and was very concerned about the way in which crime affected his constituents. That is why he had chosen this subject for today's debate. One of the saddest aspects is that we all feel that here was a man with great potential and promise, never to be realised in the House. He would have made a fine mark and a great contribution, and it was with great sadness that we learned that his life had been cut short at such an early age. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
This debate is very important and very relevant. I intend to take the opportunity to do a forensic job on the Government's policy, or lack of it. Opposition Members take no joy or satisfaction from the enormous increase in crime rates. I say that with great sincerity. We learned with horror not only that crime had risen inexorably by 50 per cent. since 1979, but that in the first quarter of the year —the most recent quarter—it had risen by 15 per cent. across the board.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) pointed out, this is the first time that more than 1 million crimes have been recorded in one quarter. Even burglary—a problem with which the Government were boasting some success as recently as the previous quarter—is up by that astonishing amount.
Those appalling figures look even worse when we consider that they have risen during the reign of the so-called party of law and order. Most people now talk almost jokingly of how the Conservative party, of all parties, went to the polls in 1979 declaiming that it was the party of law and order. The British public have learnt a valuable lesson about such claims over the past 11 years.
The Opposition take crime figures more seriously than the Government do. The Minister is a geographer by profession. He therefore knows, and I am sure that he will acknowledge, that our electoral support is based more in the urban areas than in the country and the leafy suburbs. He knows that it is in the towns and cities that people are far more vulnerable to crime. Crime is serious wherever it is committed, but we take it even more seriously because so many of our constituents are at risk.
Hon. Members of all parties acknowledge the primary need of our society to be safe. We do not often talk about it, but safety is something that we all value. It is implicit in our complaints and grumbles. It is a demand by our citizens, whether explicitly or implicitly expressed, that

they have a right to be safe. I believe that the House must conclude today that the Government have failed to deliver on that commitment to their citizens.

Mr. Tredinnick: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's train of thought with interest. I am slightly surprised that he has not referred to the record increase in police manpower since the Conservative Administration took office. If I recall correctly, it was the last Labour Government who failed to implement the Edmund-Davies report, leading to the flight of police officers, and were thus directly responsible for the crisis in police manpower that we inherited when we took office.

Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is even more confused than his original speech. The Edmund-Davies proposals, which gave the police a good deal, were initiated and introduced by the Labour Government. They were implemented in 1979 after the Conservative Government took office. The hon. Gentleman must get his facts right. The police are still grateful for the foundation that we gave police pay through the Edmund-Davies inquiry. I will go further and say that the recent reneging on that deal, for the first time in 11 years, has dispirited and undermined the morale of the police more than anything else and will be one of the factors leading to even greater despair in the police force in the coming weeks and months.
We must put more resources into our towns and cities where crime is more prevalent. The Government are in terrible difficulties in coming to terms with the reality of rising crime rates. They find themselves incapable of doing what any decent Government should do and finding a rational response. By "rational response", I mean one based on the facts. Crime has risen and is continuing to rise, and there is a crisis. The analysis of why crime is rising is important. It must be based on a pragmatic analysis of the facts rather than ideologically based answers. The mind set of the Government excludes so many of the underlying reasons for the increase in crime.
The Government discount the notion of a relationship between criminality and the prevailing values of society. The Prime Minister's policies and values have led to a get-rich-quick, materialistic, smash-and-grab society. The Government have presided over a society which emphasises the individual's right to grab anything going and says that mammon is the only thing to worship, but they will not accept that that has anything to do with rising crime rates.
The values of society have to be excluded from the Government's analysis. The Government will not believe that crime has anything to do with deprivation, unemployment, inner-city decay or the alienation of young people who have been stripped of benefit and denied homes and the opportunity to lead a full and creative life. The Government cannot believe that the rise in the crime figures can have anything to do with that, so those factors are excluded from their analysis even before it begins.
The dramatic difference that the Government cannot accept—[Interruption.] The Minister of State does not want to listen to this because he was once an academic and all the recent work in the United States and elsewhere by leading criminologists on the basis of evidence garnered over the years shows that pockets of great poverty in areas of affluence lead to rising crime rates. The Opposition


believe that Governments can act creatively and effectively if the analysis of the causes of crime is honest from the very beginning.
The Government cannot act effectively because they cannot accept the real causes of crime. Under this Government, there is no attempt to consider the real causes of crime—instead, the Government fiddle as crime rises inexorably. The Opposition believe that if crime is to be reduced, there must be a consensus among our citizens as to the basis of law and order, the kind of that policing we have and what we believe justice to be. We believe that that consensus can be achieved only by democratic involvement in policing and crime prevention.
With rising crime, we would still expect an honest and sensible Government to face the terrible figures and do something positive. We would expect them to examine their policies to see where they had gone wrong and then devise solutions based on the facts. The Government's attitude is dangerous because they are partaking of what most people under stress would recognise as the old tradition of scapegoating. If we cannot find the answers because we are frightened to look at the facts because they are too ghastly, we find someone to blame. This Government are good at that. They are good at finding a whipping boy or a scapegoat.
Some of the scapegoats are pretty horrible. I wish this were a joke, but the Government seem to be embracing quaint genetic theories about the symptoms of criminal behaviour and its origins. I should like to know the Minister of State's views about all this. It would be laughable but for the fact that the theories were raised at a high-level meeting of the Centre for Policy Studies—the right-wing think tank created by Lord Joseph. At that recent high-powered meeting, far-right academics from the United States talked about the genetically inherited effects of criminality. The Government cannot disavow the Minister of State, an Under-Secretary of State or a right-wing Back Bencher, because the keynote speech on that occasion was made by the chairman of the Conservative party. That is where the danger lies when we consider the kind of explanations that the Government are contemplating to explain the rise in the crime rates.
Far more serious in terms of this debate is the increasing evidence that the Government are insidiously mounting a campaign to discredit the police and to blame the rise in crime on them. Once again, the Government's propaganda machine has been cranked up to scapegoat the police, undermine their morale and dishearten hard-working police men and women throughout the country.

Mr. John Patten: indicated dissent.

Mr. Sheerman: The Minister of State shakes his head —he disavows that remark. I draw to his attention the front page of the 7 June edition of the Today newspaper. We all know which party the Today newspaper supports. We all know that the front page of the 7 June edition of that newspaper was headed "Police in the Dock", but that is not all that is on the front page. According to the article, crime has increased to a record 4 million. Burglaries and car theft are up 14 per cent. in some towns. Rape and violence are up 12 per cent. nationwide, despite 10,000 extra officers and £4 billion.
Who gets the blame? The police get the blame. The editor or the investigative journalist cannot get the blame.

Any working politician recognises that it is a leak either from the Minister of State or from a senior Home Office official. Someone is up to some pretty dirty business in trying to put the boot into the British police. It is in the article. The Minister of State can ask the Police Federation from whom it thinks the newspaper got the information. The word is out that it came from a high level in the Home Office.

Mr. Vaz: It came from him.

Mr. Sheerman: Was it him? Is the Minister responsible? There has been no disavowal of the remarks attributed to the very senior Home Office official. If it were a civil servant, there would be at least an internal inquiry.

Mr. Tredinnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sheerman: No, I shall not give way.
If it were a civil servant, there would be a major inquiry. There has not been a major inquiry, so the comments must have been inspired by a Minister at the Home Office. If the Minister of State disavows that, he must say so today.
The hunt is on for a scapegoat. The hunt is on in the Government to blame the British police for the crime figures which are rising so fast. I ask the Minister of State—this is a serious point—whether he was responsible for those remarks on the front page of the Today newspaper or not. If it was a senior civil servant in the Department, will the Minister have an inquiry to find out who it was? That story must be one of the most disreputable pieces of leaking and provoking. The Minister must realise the damage done to police morale.
Opposition Members do not blame the police. We believe in putting the blame fairly and squarely where it deserves to be—at the Government's door. We believe that policies for a safer society must be based on involvement, consent, and an analysis of what is really happening in our country. Public and community involvement always ensures that there is a public and community response. It makes authorities more aware of local concerns and feelings about crime—something that the Government deride time and again. They do not like to talk about public accountability, even when chief constables say how important it is to them, and even when the chief of the inspectorate says how important it is to have accountability. Police forces cannot work without that partnership with elected authorities.
It is total nonsense and a fallacy to think that the police can tackle crime alone. No one believes that—it just cannot be done. The police can tackle crime only with the involvement of the community. Opposition Members have stated clearly that to do that we need local democracy to be involved. That means local councils—the people who are elected. The Minister of State will say, "But what about the the loony left councils?" He will find two or three Labour authorities—

Mr. Greg Knight: Tell us about Derbyshire county council.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), to be allowed to shout at me? I will give way to him if he wishes to speak, but he wants only to shout.

Mr. Tredinnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sheerman: I will give way to the Government Whip but not to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick).
The Government cannot accept the fact that democratic involvement is basic to solving our crime problem. I hope that the Minister is careful in his remarks about local councils. Only last Friday, his boss the Home Secretary got his facts wrong as usual. He mentioned four councils, including Islington, which he said had not co-operated with the police, but Islington has always worked in partnership with the police on community matters, and since 1985 it has been at the forefront of such work. I have a letter confirming that. Islington council was upset that on such an important occasion as the debate on policing in London, the Home Secretary was so remiss as to get his facts wrong. I should happily give way to the Minister if he would care to comment on that.

Mr. Vaz: I was employed by Islington council from 1985 to 1987 as a solicitor and I serviced one of the committees responsible for developing the partnership between the police, the local community and the council.

Mr. Sheerman: I appreciate that information from a colleague who knows Islington well.
It is important that the Government should learn that one does not tackle crime with the police alone—they need, and have asked for, community and democratic involvement. The police are seeking a partnership.
In the Labour party policy document, "A Safer Britain", we call on the Government to recognise, even at this late stage, that the leadership on crime prevention must come from the local authorities working with the police, local community groups, neighbourhood watch schemes and private enterprise. Together they can crack crime. The police alone cannot crack crime. Nor can they do so without adequate resources. Expenditure of £250,000 to make Birmingham a safer city will mean new doors being installed in five tower blocks.
We must take crime prevention as seriously as the French. Money must be put into resources for young people. The hon. Member for Bosworth was obsessed with young people taking away cars, and I accept that that is a serious problem, but many others must also be taken into account. Unless young people are given positive opportunities for creative leisure, they will continue to commit such crime. Our society must give young people something more than they have been given in the past 11 years. We must have a society based on creative opportunities to liberate all talents.
The Government must recognise that we need overall social and economic policies to tackle decay in our inner cities, to deal with homelessness, and to help destitute young people. I invite the hon. Member for Bosworth to come with me tonight to visit one of the greatest scandals in any city in Europe—cardboard city across the river. Hundreds of young people are sleeping rough in the modern Britain governed by the Prime Minister. The divide between rich and poor—poverty amid affluence—must be brought to an end. That problem, and the danger that it poses, has been created by Government policies.
If nothing else, the Government are consistent in their ideological pursuit. If we pursue the Government's policies on crime prevention we shall end up, as we have in health and education, with services and solutions for those who can afford them and nothing for those who cannot. The

House may think that that is far-fetched, but something insidious is going on in the provision of law and order in Britain. Increasingly, a private security industry offers security to those who can afford it. One can have private security guards for one's business or in one's shopping centre. One can have private guards guarding one's residential estate. One can have good security fittings, locks and alarms—

Mr. Vaz: Gates.

Mr. Sheerman: Yes, and one can also have big dogs. As I have said in the House before, what we see down the road is the mark of the rottweiler society that the Government are encouraging. There seems to be a belief that law and order cannot be provided on a community basis—that security has to be provided on a private, individual basis. That is a dangerous road to travel. There are countries in the world where security and law and order can be bought at a price but where for the ordinary citizen, it is dangerous to walk abroad. I hope that before it is too late, the Government will turn back from that road, which will lead to the ruin of this country.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): This has been a melancholy occasion for two reasons, the first of which is the sad loss last week of our colleague Mr. Carr; Conservative Members join the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and his hon. Friends in their messages of commiseration and sadness. We can only speculate on what our late colleague would have said had he been here tonight.
The occasion has also been melancholy because, with the single exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), no hon. Member has attempted to analyse in detail any aspect of the crime figures. That has surprised me greatly. I am afraid that I found the speeches of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West and of the hon. Members for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) amazingly superficial. We have heard the sort of contributions that one might have expected in a knockabout during prime parliamentary time, but for heaven's sake, here we are, after 11 o'clock at night, with the opportunity of an hour and a half's debate. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, all of us seek to be here for an hour and a half at this time of the night, and we could have looked at the matter seriously, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth sought to do. Yet we have had nothing but the most lamentable party political hack performances from the Opposition.
I am surprised at the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West, whom I hold in great respect. He knows that when I say that, I mean it. I am not seeking to damage him in any way; indeed, he is to retire at the end of this Parliament so there is no useful damage that I can do to him. He gave us none of the profundities that we normally hear from him. He addressed just two matters. First, he referred to police numbers and asked for more police, as though that was the magic solution to our crime problems. There is not a chief constable in the land who would say, "Give me X police and I will cut the crime rate by Y."
Moreover, the right hon. and learned Gentleman simply ignored the Government's record of repeatedly increasing police man and woman power over the past 11


years. Characteristically, the right hon. and learned Gentleman made no mention of what a Labour Government might do in terms of increasing numbers—

Mr. Archer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Patten: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me, but I shall have to go very quickly if I am to respond properly to the debate. He will probably have an opportunity for revenge. No doubt he will tie me up in knots again on some legal point during proceedings on some future criminal justice measure before he retires from this place. I do not look forward to that, although I am sure that he does.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he thought that we should co-operate much more closely with local authorities. Of course the Government want to co-operate with local authorities and with businesses, commerce and local communities in trying to deal with crime. That is why we recently circulated a Home Office document—which had been requested by local authorities— to replace the circular dating back to 1984. The document, which refers to strategies for dealing with local crime prevention, has been widely welcomed by local authorities. I was surprised to hear the views adduced by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West. It is untrue to say that this or any other Government would not want to co-operate with anyone who hoped to deal with the crime problem.
Lastly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that there is no one reason why people commit crimes. I agree. I just wish that he would tell his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who informs us one month that unemployment causes crime, and the next that affluence causes it. Let us compare and contrast the approach of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West and the much more superficial approach of the hon. Member for Huddersfield with the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth tried to direct the attention of the House to one narrow area of the crime statistics, which are, after all, the topic of this debate.
Opposition Members have instead tried a knockabout, party-political discussion of police manpower. My hon. Friend tried to analyse one of the serious causes—

Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is the Minister suggesting that we were out of order this evening and that the Chair was not governing our proceedings properly?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Political knockabout is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for debate and argument.

Mr. Patten: The hon. Member for Huddersfield is clearly overtired and in need of a long summer holiday.

Madam Deputy Speaker: So am I.

Mr. Patten: I am too, Madam Deputy Speaker—much more so than the hon. Gentleman, and I shall take an early summer holiday by leaving the Chamber shortly.
I shall continue complimenting my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth by pointing out that he dealt with one of the major causes of the inflated crime statistics: the fact that car crime is on the increase is linked to young

people and joy-riding. That highly sophisticated line of argument was greeted with derision by Opposition Members—

Mr. Archer: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten: Certainly not.

Mr. Archer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not given to raising points of order, but can it be in order for the right hon. Gentleman to distort what Opposition Members said? We said exactly what the hon. Member for Bosworth said: that there should be resources to provide these facilities for young people.

Madam Deputy Speaker: This debate has become like the temperature outside—rather heated. Perhaps we should cool it and get on with it.

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend's analysis of the problem of car crime deserved a respectful hearing from the House, not the frivolous attention paid to it by Opposition Members.
I join in the welcome given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth to the increased police numbers that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has provided for Leicestershire constabulary in recent years. I also welcome that force's increased detection rates, and I congratulate it on them.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) was at it again, paying me compliments. I do wish that he would stop that lamentable habit, which he continues in an attempt to have it noted by the Government Whip. I very much hope that the Whips will not record the hon. Gentleman's compliments to me.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East gave us an empty analysis, reminiscent of analyses by the Leader of the Opposition. In his blanket review of the crime figures, he made no attempt to recognise the considerable differences in the figures in various parts of the country. For example, in Merseyside, a part of which was represented by our late colleague, the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Carr), crime figures did not increase in the last quarter.
Any serious analysis of crime figures must be carried out properly and in depth. They should not be subjected to a superficial analysis of the kind carried out by the hon. Member for Leicester, East. He called for more police, hut gave no hint of a pledge that a future Labour Administration would make on police pay or numbers. I applaud his work for Crime Concern, which is an important all-party organisation. I shall certainly draw his remarks about police stations in Leicester to the attention of my noble Friend who is responsible for such matters. I am not familiar with those stations because such matters are not my ministerial responsibility.
The regular publication of crime figures is normally accompanied by extensive press and broadcast comment. If the figures are falling, as they were for a couple of years, coverage is not so prominent. When the figures go up, so does the coverage—much of which is sensational. Even in the heated atmosphere of the Chamber, to which you have drawn attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish that there could be all-party agreement about the need for serious and responsible reporting of crime figures. Sensational reporting of the figures leads people to believe that they are living in a violent and dangerous country,


and that has been confirmed by recent independent research published by the Broadcasting Standards Council.
We know that many people are unnecessarily concerned about crime, and victims have every reason to be concerned. We also know that many people are afraid of becoming victims of crime. That fear can alter the way in which they live, and that turns the fear into reality because, if people are over-fearful, it stunts their lives. That is why so many women are worried about travelling after dark.
As the House knows, we set up a working group of the Standing Conference on Crime Prevention to look into the importance of the fear of crime. The group was ably chaired by Michael Grade and it included some journalists, including the present editor of The Times. Their strictures on the written and broadcast media have not been taken seriously enough. It is right for crime figures to be given regularly so that they can be open to interpretation, or misinterpretation as is sometimes the case. It is entirely wrong to use them to make news or to sensationalise it, because that unnecessarily increases the fear of crime.
One of the recommendations of Mr. Grade's working party was that we should reduce the number of times that we publish crime statistics, which are published every three months, in order to stop fuelling people's fear of crime. I do not feel able to adopt that recommendation because, having started for better or worse to publish quarterly crime figures, we had better continue. I hope that no hon. Member doubts the excellence of the series of statistics produced over many years by the Home Office. I pay tribute to the department that produces them. In the past 11 years the figures have been altered only in two minor ways which had the net effect of inflating the crime figures rather than diminishing them.
Some home affairs journalists produce excellent coverage. Greater understanding of the figures would lead to a much more intelligent debate about crime in England and Wales. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and his colleagues looked at the figures and then sprayed the Chamber with figures of billions, hundreds of thousands and millions. That is meaningless. They should look at the true crime figures for England and Wales.
For example, violent and sexual crimes are relatively rare. Such offences account for about 6 per cent. of all recorded crime. Two thirds of that six out of every 100 crimes committed are less serious offences of wounding, and are often extremely minor offences. I am not seeking to diminish the importance of homicide. Happily, we catch 90 to 95 of each alleged murderers. I am not diminishing the awful effects of rape. We catch about seven or eight of every 10 rapists and increased and improved forensic techniques may mean that by the end of the century we shall catch nine or even 10 out 10 rapists.
However, it is important for us to set the awfulness of those crimes against the relatively low incidence of violent crime in Britain compared with that in many other western European countries. We heard nothing from the Opposition about the true picture of crime in Britain, so eager were they to fall over the statistics that we heard regurgitated to us in the Chamber.
A recent international survey showed that in 1988 the victimisation rate—the percentage of people who were victims of crime—for an assault with force was 0·6 per cent. in England and Wales, 2 per cent. in the Netherlands, 1·5 per cent. in Germany, 1·2 per cent. in France, 2·3 per cent. in the United States and 3 per cent. in Australia. Compared with most other European countries we have a lower rate of victimisation for assault, robberies and sexual assaults. The figures for the United States, Canada and Australia are significantly higher for most of the offences.
The most common offences in Britain are the most avoidable offences, including minor offences of thefts from and of cars, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth drew the attention of the House, and the eminently avoidable crime of domestic burglary. In about a quarter of cases, when a thief gets into a house he or she walks in through an unlocked door or climbs in through an unlocked window.
Thefts of property, whether in domestic burglary or of cars, are eminently avoidable. The most prevalent are thefts from cars and thefts of cars. Over a quarter of the crimes committed in 1989—over 1 million—were thefts from and of cars. Even the hon. Member for Huddersfield would not suggest that when every car is parked there should be a policeman standing next to it to prevent crime.
In the 12 months that ended in March there were more than 400,000 thefts of cars and over 600,000 thefts from cars. So much can be done by better design, by insurance companies and, above all, by the individuals who own cars to take better care of their property. That is where we face the British disease. The incidence of thefts from and of cars is higher in Britain than in any other country in western Europe except Spain. Almost all the rise in crime in the 1980s can be laid at the door of an increase in car crime. The idea that that can be solved simply by putting more policemen on the beat is fallacious. Car crime wastes an enormous amount of the time and money of the police force, apart from anything else. The police spend a great deal of time recording and investigating crimes that are eminently preventable.
I agree with one thing that the hon. Member for Huddersfield said. We are all responsible for playing our part in dealing with crime, whether car crime or any other crime. The hon. Gentleman also talked about safety and said that safety was a pretty good theme. That was one of the few passages in his speech when he was not shouting at me and the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) who, as the House will have noticed, fled from the Chamber immediately afterwards, so awful was the verbal assault. I had to get down below the Dispatch Box, it was so violent, Madam Deputy Speaker. You should defend junior Ministers when they are in trouble in that way.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is Deputy Speakers who need defending.

Mr. Patten: No, Ma'am, never you.
How on earth does the hon. Member for Huddersfield think that the Labour party's new plans for elected police authorities will help public safety in this country? The hon. Gentleman is fond of challenging Ministers to deny things, so perhaps I shall challenge him to deny that it is Labour policy to have elected police authorities with operational control over police forces—

Mr. Sheerman: rose—

Mr. Patten: Here he comes—in effect to have politically elected police authorities.

Mr. Sheerman: rose—

Mr. Patten: I think that I shall not give way because it would spoil the grand finale of my speech. It is to say that the Labour party's plans for revised policing will cause a major constitutional—

Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister begged me to intervene to put the record straight. The Labour party has no such plans as those that the Minister—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Sheerman: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot raise a matter further to a point of order when there was no point of order in the first place.

Mr. Patten: I always accept your rulings, Madam Deputy Speaker, and would not dream of contesting them under any circumstances.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Insurance Industry (Security)

Mr. Jack Aspinwall: I am pleased to have won an early place in the ballot for the Consolidated Fund debate, particularly to discuss the regulation of the insurance industry. I express my thanks to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), and to my hon. Friends the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward), for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), and for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), whose constituents have been involved in the matter that I bring to the attention of the House tonight.
I emphasise the extreme distress caused to many of my constituents and those of other hon. Members serving the Avon area who were victims of serious and substantial fraud perpetrated by a former Bristol investment adviser, Martyn Foster, who was recently brought to tnal and sentenced to six years in prison. The sum in question was said to be in the region of £2·4 million, and more than 100 victims are thought to have been involved—most of whom are former employees of Avon companies. The sums in all cases represented their life savings, redundancy payments, or pension commutations. Their number included retired members of Avon and Somerset constabulary.
All the moneys were without exception invested in major insurance companies, spread over investment bonds and endowment policies during the mid 1980s, when the intermediary was employed by a leading firm of Bristol investment brokers.
During 1986, Foster left that firm to form his own business, and he capitalised on the good will and trust that he had nurtured with clients while with his former employer. He subsequently persuaded large numbers of them to transfer to his new brief. One strange feature of the scenario was the reluctance of his former employer to combat that apparent poaching of its business, when all that was required at the time was to inform its clients of the circumstances surrounding Foster's dubious departure. The firm seemed prepared to see all its business decanted without a fight, when a viable solution was available.
Further redundancies became known, and the fraudulent broker was passed from one new client to another in the development of his business. During 1987, clients were told that an application for authorisation under the Financial Services Act 1986 was being made, but that lapsed because of non-payment of dues.
In mid-1988, the Securities and Investments Board was alerted by a firm of insurance brokers to whom someone had complained. The SIB promptly contacted the police and an arrest took place during September, after which bail conditions were broken and the broker was later re-arrested in a London casino with considerable sums of money in cash on his person. He has now been sentenced on a number of specimen charges.
Then effect of those events on the lives of many of my constituents has been dramatic, and is reflected in a considerable change in their life style. I shall highlight a few examples.
Mrs. Ivy Hamilton's husband died on 1 March 1988, at the height of the period when it is known that funds were being illegally withdrawn. She believed that her financial position was secure, due to the considerable amount of their investments and the life policy on Mr. Hamilton. Later, it was discovered that all their moneys had been withdrawn. The policy on Mr. Hamilton had been allowed


to lapse and the initial premium withdrawn. Had the policy been kept up to date, it would have yielded a claim in the region of £30,000. A further policy on Mrs. Hamilton with Scottish Widows was withdrawn on the day of her husband's death, using her husband's forged signature. Its surrender value was made payable to the intermediary at an accommodation address.
Then there was the case of Mr. and Mrs. K. Spicer, who had invested in bonds with Trident Life to the value of £21,000 and drew a monthly income of £180, which ceased in August 1988. Everything has gone—both capital and income. They now exist on state pensions and a small company pension. Mrs. Spicer found a small part-time job, but had to give up because of ill health.
Another case is that of Mr. and Mrs. Marsh, who had recently invested £52,000 with Scottish Equitable, Norwich Union and Trident Life. They sold their home in Keynsham, which is in my constituency of Wansdyke, for £52,000 and were persuaded to mortgage their new house in Cornwall and reinvest the balance of the money—after the deposit was paid, along with the other money—in an unknown insurance company. When Mr. Marsh died in February 1989, it was discovered that all their investments had been withdrawn.
Mr. and Mrs. Kirby are another example. Mr. Kirby was a departmental manager with British Aerospace, who took early retirement and a lump sum, of which £28,000 was invested with Scottish Widows and provided him and his wife with a monthly income. On advice, the sum was transferred to Sentinel Life, and a smaller sum to Abbey Life. Mrs. Kirby authorised withdrawal of the Abbey Life policy, with the intention of transferring it to a new Guardian Royal exchange policy. That was the last that they saw of any of their money, as it has been dissipated, together with money belonging to many other people, by forgery.
As a result of their loss, the Kirbys' world has changed dramatically. Mr. Kirby has had to find work to eke out his moderate works pension and at the age of 58 has found it impossible to obtain the type of work to which he was accustomed; he is currently employed as a factory labourer, part of whose duties is cleaning toilets.
Some other constituents, Mr. and Mrs. John Clothier, retired together in July 1985. Mr. Clothier is also a former Cadbury Schweppes employee, with about 42 years service since leaving school—30 years as a production manager.
The Cadbury modernisation programme brought many changes, including the offer of early retirement to Mr. Clothier in July 1985. He accepted it, along with many other colleagues in a similar age group. The terms agreed with Mr. Clothier were for a substantial redundancy payment, also commuting a lump sum from the Cadbury pension scheme. The total was £53,000 plus a monthly pension. Cadbury initiated an intensive programme of advice at retirement seminars and included financial advice from an independent firm of investment advisers. The help from them included the opportunity to manage former employees' investments.
Mr. Clothier also sought advice from various other sources before committing himself to a Bristol company, Redcliffe Associates. That company already had a number of ex-colleagues on its books and, before finally committing himself, he sought the benefit of their

experience and satisfaction, and the apparent success of their investment portfolios, and the additional services that the company had on offer. The representative of the company who dealt with them was a man called Martyn Foster.
At this stage, hon. Members should appreciate that this was a group of people, employed by a large company, who were being offered early retirement, with—to them—large sums of money for the first time in their lives: sums greater than they could have dreamed of, when previously the most that they would have had would be a modest building society account or a Post Office savings bank account. Despite the advice on offer, they knew absolutely nothing of the workings of the great financial institutions, and were vulnerable to any predator approach.
Mr. Clothier became happy with the services provided by Foster on behalf of Messrs. Redcliffe Associates. They included a spread of investments over four major insurance companies: Norwich Union, Scottish Equitable, Scottish Mutual and Scottish Widows. These bonds attracted a high interest rate. A further service relating to income tax was available. As a result of Mr. Foster's actions, an overpayment of £4,000 in tax was recovered on behalf of Mr. Clothier.
In circumstances such as these, the element of trust as between intermediary and client is fortified. Any credibility doubts are quickly banished. General satisfaction over the bonds' performance activated further investments, with the addition of Mrs. Clothier's savings, culminating in a grand total of £63,000.
In February 1986, Foster told everyone that he was leaving Redcliffe Associates to form his own company in brokerage, to be called Foster and Company. As a result of the flair and the apparent success of the relationship with clients that he had established, large numbers of my constituents, including Mr. and Mrs. Clothier, transferred their bonds and their new business to that man. At the same time, they all genuinely believed that they had the protection of the insurance companies around them because that was where their money had been placed.
In the meantime, Mr. and Mrs. Clothier began to draw income from the profits on their investments from August 1986. It was paid into their bank account by Norwich Union Insurance. At that time Mr. and Mrs. Clothier believed that they had security for the rest of their lives. All their confidence was shattered during August 1988, when Mr. Clothier was told of the arrest of Foster on suspicion of defrauding clients of their money. It all culminated in the investigation, trial and conviction of the criminal.
Since the trial, Mr. Clothier has obtained Foster's files and documents and has carried out his own research into investment transfers, supposed to have been made by Foster on his behalf. He discovered that an application form for placing money in a Guardian Royal Exchange investment bond in May 1987 for a total of £46,500, signed by him—Mr. Clothier—and his wife, had never been deposited with Guardian Royal Exchange. Another form issued by Guardian Royal Exchange, signed in February 1988 for the transfer of the previous bond to the Rosary managed fund, had also not transpired.
This all points to the fact that Mr. Foster was using Guardian Royal Exchange application forms for his own evil purpose and deceiving people into believing that true transactions were taking place, when he was misappropriating the money for his own purposes. Mr. Clothier also discovered that Foster was authorised to use Guardian


Royal Exchange investment documentation by virtue of an agreement between GRE and himself, drawn up and countersigned by GRE on 3 March 1987. Under the provision, he had established this so-called Rosary fund with the full co-operation of the company concerned. A copy of that document is available.
There is certainly room for a thorough investigation here. An explanation is required to judge whether the document has the effect of transferring this company's role from that of an intermediary to that of an agent.
I turn now to the case of Councillor and Mrs. Roy stone, who live in Cadbury Heath in my constituency. As with many other investors, they were former Cadbury employees who took it upon themselves to leave the company in 1964 to start their own business. However, they retained many social links with former working colleagues. To that extent, they opted during October 1986 to withdraw their building society savings and place them in Scottish Equitable investment bonds, with Foster acting as intermediary. The money remained there for only a short while. They agreed to it being transferred to Sentinel Life in June 1987, and put into a new investment bond of some £44,000. On 3 March 1988, the bond was surrendered and encashed by the intermediary on a forged signature—an act completely unknown to Mr. and Mrs. Stone until the fraud was uncovered by the police later that year.
When the incident became reported in the media, the Stones wrote to Sentinel Life in an effort to discover where their money had gone or if it was still intact. They asked for copies of encashment forms relevant to the matter. Almost by return of post came copies of the various documents, confirming their fears that the money had been dissipated along with all the rest, and in similar circumstances, at a surrender value of £30,402. It should be remembered that the effect of the crash in 1987 would have been taken into account when that figure was considered.
The photo-documents released by Sentinel Life also revealed, as with many other cases, that the theft had been successfully concealed for several months because the insurance company involved had glibly accepted the withdrawal instructions of the intermediary to send both the payment, payable to the intermediary, and all the customary advice notes to the policyholder to a special accommodation address nominated by the intermediary, when, in reality, say the Stones, the insurance company required their permission, not the intermediary's, to mail any correspondence addressed to them to any address other than their own. They state that, if that simple common practice had been followed, in their case at least the theft could not have taken place because they would have been forewarned that the withdrawal was taking place and would have taken quicker steps to countermand the illegal instructions.
The Stones are naturally bitter about the affair and say that it could have been avoided if the insurance company had built some basic security arrangements into its encashment operation. They say that they played no part in the withdrawal, so the policy still stands and should be treated as such.
I now come to perhaps the most important part of my speech—to consider the insurance companies' role in the story. When full investigations were made, what was discovered reads like a horror story. It is evident that the insurance industry needs to carry out a special

investigation into its security arrangements as they apply to the payment of funds. In this case, a crude, systematic stealing of funds was made easy by a withdrawals procedure that appears to be little more than a clerical exercise performed on a visual display unit.
I understand, for example, that, once new policies are authorised and logged into the software, most companies dispose of the original documents, rendering any future checks on authenticity extremely difficult. What happened in the vast majority of the cases was that letters of confirmation of withdrawal to the policyholder were actually posted, not to the policyholder, but to a special accommodation address on the instructions of the intermediary on the application for withdrawal. As a part of the theft, that effectively ensured that the policyholder would not be aware of what was going on. Had the notes been sent to the proper address, as written on the policy, the majority of the fraud could not have taken place, and the instructions would have been countermanded in time to prevent it.
Such sloppy practice cannot be justified in any shape or form, and requires some explanation from the appropriate source. Representatives of the Association of British Insurers, have criticised the failure of investors to check intermediary authorisation. The House may need to be reminded that all these events took place before the implementation of the Financial Services Act 1986. To a degree, the criticism is accepted. However, one would have thought that the insurance companies, with their expertise and experience, would also have some responsibility in the same direction.
It has been discovered that, in early 1987, Guardian Royal Exchange authorised Foster to manage a new investment brief entitled the Rosary fund. Under its arrangements, he was to act on behalf of that company and had sole control over its investment policy, despite the known fact that he was not authorised, that his application had lapsed and that he was stealing large sums of money from policies.
We need to remind ourselves that the Financial Services Act was already on the statute book and only a few weeks away from implementation. At least one company was not taking the new Act too seriously or ensuring staff training in its new provisions. The Association of British Insurers' code of practice gives guidance to intermediaries on dealing with clients and establishing new clients, but nowhere does it give guidance to clients on authorisation, or deal with the procedures for withdrawal. In the absence of such guidance, surely the common principles of fair play and practice should apply.
In fairness, however, not all the cases that have been brought to my attention are by any means entirely the fault of the insurance companies. Some people were unfortunately naive, and probably contributed to their own problems, but one must appreciate the trust and bond that most people of this age group traditionally have from a lifetime's experience of the insurance industry. They undoubtedly belong to a special social group, weaned on the proverbial penny policy which was brought into their weekly lives with a knock on the door by the insurance man. They have been conditioned to trust the insurance man who has always been the friend of the family and they would not distinguish between an insurance agent and broker. For that reason, much of that trust would have been transmitted to this man, who came into their lives for


only one purpose. Indeed, for those reasons, it is possible that several of them signed documents without being aware of, or properly advised about, what they were doing.
There are many such examples of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends—ordinary people who have suffered catastrophe in their lives, causing much hardship to them and their families. Following advice given to them, they ultimately trusted the insurance companies concerned and were entitled, as the real customers, to a reasonable standard of service and administration, in an atmosphere of good faith and integrity. There are good reasons to believe that there has been a serious default in the performance of those standards, which helped fraud to succeed and my constituents to be disadvantaged.
I have seen case after case where policies have been surrendered at a fraction of the value of moneys paid in premiums on the request of a fraudulent intermediary to send payment to an accommodation address. There was no response from the insurance companies concerned, other than to send the cheque as requested with no notification to the customer, who after all is the policyholder. No suspicion was aroused, and there was no investigation. Original policy documents and original signatures are kept only in some cases on microfilm. In one case, an insurance company learned of a fraud only from a newspaper about eight months after the event.
There are many examples of poor service and muddled administration enabling fraud to take place, as in this case, in which more than £2 million was taken from ordinary people who had faith and who believed that they had the strength of the insurance companies around them.
The insurance industry makes a vital contribution to our national and international life, financing industry and commerce and enabling people to invest in their country's future. The people involved in this case are just ordinary folk, and I feel that this powerful industry and national institution should start an immediate inquiry into how to solve my constituents' problems. I am pleased to say that already one major company—Abbey Life—has settled with its customers. I thank it for doing so. It has honoured its legal and moral obligations, and I hope that the lead that it has shown will be a path for others to follow. A number of people will no doubt have a just legal claim against insurance companies, but for others there will be nothing more than a moral obligation on the companies concerned.
I hope that all parties or their representatives can get together and arrive at some settlement. This situation has gone on long enough, as more than 18 months passed between the commission of the offences and the trial. During that time, three of the policyholders died, and there is still little progress. At my instigation, the Association of British Insurers met representatives of the group of policyholders. An offer has been made to investigate each case. This might be a way forward, if firm resolve is shown by the member companies. This morning, I received a letter from the ABI outlining its position. The letter was helpful, and I hope that it or the insurance ombudsman will show another path by which my constituents might receive satisfaction.
There are almost daily instances of investment fraud. There have been other instances in my constituency—the Barlow Clowes affair, to name but one. I congratulate the

Government on the Financial Services Act 1986 and the fine work of the Securities and Investment Board, with its substantial regulatory powers and the self-regulatory bodies, all contributing to a high level of investor protection. This includes the ABI.
Is it not time for the insurance companies involved—Trident Life, Sentinel Life, Scottish Widows Fund and Life Assurance Society, Scottish Mutual Assurance Society, Standard Life Assurance, Norwich Union Insurance, Crown Life, Guardian Royal Exchange and Abbey Life, which has already settled—to look back with concern at the difficulties experienced by their customers, the policyholders, who were victims of a fraudulent intermediary, who acted in the names of the insurance companies? A negotiated settlement without a lot of delay and hassle would help many families to reconstruct their ruined lives and to enjoy a peaceful and well-deserved retirement.

Ms. Majorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Member for Wansdyke (Mr. Aspinwall) at a simple level for not talking for so long that others could not participate and also for outlining so graphically and clearly the problems suffered by his constituents and others in Bristol as a result of Martyn Foster's fraud. One sad aspect of a Member of Parliament's job is that one receives letters from so many people who have suffered as a result of the activities of various organisations, whether it be Dunsdale, Barlow Clowes or the one to which the hon. Gentleman referred. In a sense, the difficulty is not so much in convincing people how those activities have so badly affected their lives as in getting the Government to acknowledge what has happened and do something. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, as a Conservative Member, will have better luck than some of us have had in getting the Government to wake up and act responsibly.
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has had a positive response from the Association of British Insurers and Abbey Life. Let us hope that the other insurance companies follow. The Department of Trade and Industry recently carried out investigations, so perhaps there could be an investigation into how fraud of such depth could occur for so many years and whether there is a need for a review of security arrangements in the insurance industry. Will the Minister at least consider such a review, or will we hear a definite no from him?
The Financial Services Act and the investor compensation scheme were not in place when many of Martyn Foster's frauds took place. Many people, particularly in the wake of Barlow Clowes, are beginning to believe that they are entitled to compensation. Many of those involved in the Dunsdale Securities affair feel that, if the people involved in Barlow Clowes were compensated, the same should apply to them. I think that the same will also be true of many people who have suffered at the hands of Martyn Foster. The feeling is that a compensation scheme exists and should pay out. By paying compensation following the Kingfisher-Dixon fiasco, the Department of Trade and Industry has created a precedent, suggesting that either the Department itself or the investor compensation scheme should continue to pay compensation in such cases.
As we know, the investor compensation scheme is limited, in regard to both the amount involved and the


criteria of applicability. I do not ask the Government to do a "savings and loan" and offer compensation across the board. We all know about the political and economic problems that that involves. Obviously, investment involves risk. What is necessary, however, is for the Government to make the present system work more efficiently.
Is the Minister considering any changes in the investment compensation scheme, in the wake of Martyn Foster, Dunsdale and Barlow Clowes? Should the maximum amount available be increased, for instance? Mr. and Mrs. Marsh, whom the hon. Member for Wansdyke mentioned, would clearly not be covered sufficiently by the scheme. If the Minister thinks that the scheme is not quite working, has he thought about that aspect?
As the hon. Member for Wansdyke pointed out, the information provided for investors is not always the kind that people read. It is no good the Minister saying that if they intend to invest their money they should read the information. Under the current Financial Services Act, about 4½lb a year of material about one investment can go through a person's door. Many people will not read that amount of information.
As the Government embark on a wider and deeper share ownership scheme, they should acknowledge the truth of what I have said. They should look long and hard at the nature and format of the information that the FSA recommends and decide whether a review is necessary. As the hon. Member for Wansdyke pointed out, if people trust someone they do not always bother to read the small print. Has the Minister reviewed the insurance indemnity introduced last year by FIMBRA, the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association? Should that not be an option?
The present Secretary of State for Transport introduced the Financial Services Act 1986 in a hurry. The Minister looks doubtful, but most people would agree that it was not given time to bed down, and that as a result there are still many rough edges and many elements which do not work. In my view, it is over-bureaucratic, inefficient and top-heavy. It not only fails to protect the investor as it set out to do, but makes it difficult for those in the City to work. Given the number of disasters that have taken place, I should be interested to know what changes the Minister is considering.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): Will the hon. Lady tell us which bits of the structure and which bits of the rules she would get rid of?

Ms. Mowlam: I will certainly do that on 15 October, when we shall have a whole day to debate the Financial Services Act and the single market. I have no intention of going into such detail tonight.
The Minister looked doubtful when I mentioned the speed with which the FSA was introduced. There seems to be no doubt about that among the people to whom I have talked in the City, but on 15 October I will treat the Minister to a breakdown of the changes that I would make if I were in his position. Today, however, we are here to debate the position of the constituents of the hon. Member for Wansdyke.
Let us consider the problems faced by the compensation scheme, given that consumer protection is not

working under the FSA. It is essential that we sort this out. In 1992, consumer protection will become more difficult and more complicated, and we have to be sure that our present system is working efficiently.
As we know, since 1979 a life office in one country has been able to open a branch in another. The second life directive covering the controversial area of freedom of service may be more difficult in terms of consumer protection and may worsen some of the problems that we have already seen. As the Minister knows, it will mean that French residents can take out a Dutch policy, written in Dutch rules. That represents a major change in principle in terms of each country protecting its own residents through its own regulatory regimes.
The third directive may be even more problematic, but my point is that that will have a great impact in terms of consumer protection and it is essential that our own system is working more efficiently than it is at present before we can be sure that we can compete on favourable terms in Europe.
Consumer protection is important in its own right and if United Kingdom insurance companies are to compete successfully in 1992. If insurance companies are to gain market share, they must do so on the back of a good record of consumer choice and protection. Our competitive advantage in the eyes of non-United Kingdom customers will be reflected in the diversity and choice of products and services as well as in a competitive cost position and a favourable regulatory regime in which consumers are protected. We should remember that in life insurance our European competitors are much more guarded about protecting their consumer interests. That will be one of the selling points with which we shall be forced to compete. Therefore, it is essential that we make our present position clear and ensure that the system is working more efficiently.
The hon. Member for Wansdyke outlined how Martyn Foster had been able to get away with his fraud by being passed from one company to another, with the companies being pleased to see the back of a bad egg rather than having to deal with the problem directly. The problem has gone on and on. I complain every time it happens and I am told that there is a system of checks. I received a letter from the Minister only a week or so ago saying that there is a system under the FSA to deal with that. If that is so, that is another part of the FSA which is not working successfully. We see in this case, as we have on other occasions, that individuals are able to get away by moving from company to company without a clear recommendation and simply taking the problems with them. They obtain other jobs as a result of having worked for another company. It would be useful to know what efforts are being made to deal with that degree of incompetence.
It would be useful to know what efforts are being made in relation to competence. The McDonald report on training and competence in the financial services industry was published by the Securities and Investments Board in May this year. She outlines clearly the need for training, and I support that report. No one can dispute the need for training. There is a clear shortage of graduates entering the industry. With increased competition in the industry, the need for higher quality staff as well as an added safeguard against fraud are all reasons for increased training resources and a move towards common standards and


comparative qualifications. I am interested in the Minister's response in relation to incompetence and what is being done to achieve greater competence.
I intended to raise some proposals for specific changes in the regulatory system, but I should hate to worry the Minister with the details of that when we can deal with them on 15 October. However, when we have duplication of the functions between the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation and FIMBRA there is a case for a merger such as that under discussion between the Association of Futures Brokers and Dealers and the Securities Association. Such a merger between LAUTRO and FIMBRA would be sensible in terms of cost and efficiency. It would benefit consumer protection and would bring about greater uniformity of standards across the industry, which would also benefit the consumer. Without going into the details, that is a clear example that would help.
In response to the case made clearly and graphically by the hon. Member for Wansdyke, what particular concerns does the Minister have about consumer protection and what action does he propose to take? I am worried that, as usual, the Department of Trade and Industry will do nothing. That would not benefit consumers and, sadly, it would not benefit the industry in Britain or in the single market as we move to 1992. It would benefit the competitiveness of the industry if there were a cleaner, better protected industry than we have at present.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Mr. Aspinwall) for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House. I am grateful to him and to my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward), for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) and for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), and to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), for all the work that they have done to put together the dossier and for talking to their constituents to chronicle this sad tale.
Tonight's story was sad. It was a story of ordinary investors defrauded by a dishonest insurance intermediary. Like other hon. Members in the House tonight, I am extremely sorry to hear of the problems that those people experienced.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke told the House, the man who perpetrated the fraud has been gaoled for six years. That is small comfort to those who lost money through dealings with him but it is a sign, contrary to the allegations made by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), that malpractices and wrongdoings are followed up vigorously by the prosecuting authorities. Investigations are carried out and necessary action is taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke concentrated on the responsibilities—legal and moral—of the insurance companies concerned. The cases of Mrs. Hamilton, Mr. and Mrs. Spicer, Mr. and Mrs. Marsh, Mr. and Mrs. Kirby, Mr. and Mrs. Clothier and Mr. and Mrs. Stone are harrowing. I am glad that the Association of

British Insurers has agreed to use its good offices to ensure that each individual case is considered in the companies concerned at the highest level.
Since April 1988, as my hon. Friend implied, all investment advisers, such as Mr. Foster, have had to be authorised or exempt under the Financial Services Act 1986. That new regulatory regime has made a great deal of difference to the way in which those matters are handled. Almost all investment advisers will have joined one of the self-regulating organisations and in order to do so, they will have had to pass a "fit and proper" test designed to assess their competence, honesty and their solvency in appropriate cases. Once admitted to membership, they will have had to operate within a framework of rules and regulations designed to protect their clients.
The overall regulatory standards are overseen by the Securities and Investments Board. The detailed rules and regulations are agreed by the individual SROs drawing on the practical experience of their members.
The system draws on the involvement of practitioners for just the sort of reasons that my hon. Friend brought out so clearly tonight. Practitioners should understand what goes on in real life, where the pitfalls may be—such as surrendering policies direct to intermediaries with no reference to the policyholder—and how best to make sure that investors avoid falling into such pits. The Financial Services Act regulators are particularly concerned where investment advisers wish to hold client money since, as my hon. Friend has shown us tonight, the potential for abuse in that area is higher.
I welcome my hon. Friend's endorsement of the Financial Service Act 1986 and his endorsement of the efforts of SIB and the self-regulating organisations. Establishing the new regulatory system has been a major achievement. It was far from rushed. There was extensive consultation and lengthy debate in the House. It took many months to implement all the parts of the system into law and regulation in this country.
Unfortunately for those about whom my hon. Friend spoke tonight, the much broader coverage of the Financial Services Act, with its more substantial powers to identify and act on abuses, was not in place when most of the events that my hon. Friend described took place.
This case resulted in action being taken once the new system came in. An investor called one of the insurance companies, which informed the SIB, which then took action. Within a few months of the new system being introduced, Mr. Foster's business activities were discovered. Within five months of the new regime, he had been arrested.
Under the new system, if someone is authorised by FIMBRA, their clients are eligible for money from the SIB compensation scheme. If they are not authorised, compliance action should follow when their misdeeds become apparent. Unfortunately, Mr. Foster was never authorised under the Financial Services Act 1986, so no compensation is payable. As Mr. Foster persuaded most of his clients to give him full powers to look after their financial affairs, the insurance companies made payments in good faith.
I note that one insurance company has been sympathetic in its consideration of this matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke says, and I hope that other companies, when looking at cases at a senior level, will consider very carefully whether they too should be


sympathetic. Under the financial services arrangements now in place, insurance companies should check that someone is authorised if they do business with him.
The regulation of insurance in the United Kingdom is based on the prudential control of solvency, which is the responsibility of my Department, assisted by the Government Actuary's department, and conduct of business rules, which are the responsibility of the Securities and Investments Board and LAUTRO. The aim of the system is to limit the number of companies that go bankrupt and to control marketing and sales techniques so that the public are not unduly pressured.
That system of regulation has given our industry considerable freedom to compete and innovate, which has benefited the consumer. The products of the United Kingdom life insurance industry are probably the best value in Europe.
Freedom to compete, of course, brings with it the risk of failure, but the rate of failure of insurance companies has been acceptably low. Private policyholders with United Kingdom policies are protected by the Policyholders Protection Act 1975. So far, the Policyholders Protection Board, since its inception in 1975, has found it necessary to raise only two levies on the industry, one in 1976 and another this year, totalling some £2·5 million.
Insurance regulation is being improved all the time by the Department. We have decided to secure private sector expertise, and the first private sector recruit from the industry is already working for us. We are planning a major upgrading of our computer system to help us to detect any potential problems as early as possible so that we can take action in good time to protect policyholders. We have recently put proposals to the industry for strengthening the appointed actuary system. That system is a very important safeguard for ensuring that life funds are properly managed and not exposed to undue risk.
We are currently considering the generally favourable response from the industry and the professions to those proposals. We are also giving considerable thought as to whether there should be professional opinions on the adequacy of reserves for non-life companies. Once we have reached some provisional conclusions on those ideas, we shall issue a consultation paper. All that is part of an active and vigorous regulatory role by the Department as the House would expect.
The hon. Member for Redcar claims that there is nothing going on in the Department and that cases such as the Barlow Clowes case and the Foster fraud show negligence by the Government. How wrong she is. The Barlow Clowes case is a case in point. Because the ombudsman found that the Government had been guilty of maladministration in the past, the Government provided compensation for the victims of Barlow Clowes. It would be nice to hear some comments by the hon. Lady in support of that. Many people are grateful for that compensation money. In the case of the Foster fraud, we have already heard this evening that action was taken to deal with the criminal deeds that were revealed.
The idea that the compensation arrangements are inadequate is also based upon a misunderstanding of what is actually taking place. Compensation is not an entitlement in the way in which the hon. Lady seemed to suggest. In the case of Barlow Clowes, the compensation arrangements arose out of the extreme circumstances of the case, as the Government explained at the time of the

announcement. In other cases, they have to be those of the SIB compensation scheme. If the hon. Lady has criticisms of that scheme, she should route them direct to the SIB, because it is charged with its administration and working out the details of its limits, the amounts involved and so forth.
The hon. Lady said that people need less information when investing. I shall be interested to hear her views when she finally gets to the point in October when she can give us the necessary detail about what information the investor does not need which he currently receives. I agree with her intention that investors need the right amount of high quality information that they are likely to read and understand and which gives them sufficient information on which to base a realistic judgment. We must await the formation of the hon. Lady's criticisms in more detail.
The hon. Lady also suggested that the Financial Services Act 1986 is over-bureaucratic, inefficient and top heavy as a result of the structure that it introduced. However, when I asked what she would get rid of, she failed to mention a single item. She merely went on to say that she would welcome a report that imposed extensive new training obligations on all those involved in the financial services industry. I therefore feel that she has not done her homework on the how the legislation, the system and the structure operate in the interests of the customer financial services businesses.
The hon. Lady also spoke about the common market in insurance that the British Government are working to achieve with our partners in Europe. She is right to think that insurance regulation here must be seen as part of a wider European Community market. It is our aim to ensure that every Community consumer can buy whatever insurance policy he likes from any authorised Community insurer. In principle it should be as simple to buy a British or Dutch insurance in Paris or Milan as to buy a French or Italian car in London or Amsterdam. That is why I welcome the Commission's decision to propose a single licence system for insurance, which does not allow Governments to meddle with tariffs or policy conditions.
Insurance companies should be free to compete, and policyholders free to shop around with the advice of intermediaries to find out what suits them best. The single licence system has already been agreed for banking and is under discussion for investment services. There is no reason why insurance should be different. Similar regimes should be adopted for those financial sectors which are in competition with each other—for instance, life insurance and investment services.
The proposed non-life directive to which the right hon. Lady referred and which the Commission has just put to the Council is very important, and my Department will be consulting widely on it. I hope that consumers particularly will take an interest in those proposals since the main benefits should accrue to them. Freer competition produces keener prices and forces companies to become more responsive to customer needs in the design of their policies. The proposed directive satisfies this criterion while laying down a firm basis for prudential supervision, which is at the core of our own system.
The hon. Lady suggested that our system was inadequate or pathetic in contrast with others in the Community, but that is far from true. There is much in our system that is admired by those on the continent, particularly financial services regulation. Many of them


are studying what we do as part of their preparation for the wider market in investment services and insurance as the Community wide regime is developed.
In this brief but important debate, I have outlined the range of measures the Government took when introducing the Financial Services Act 1986 and the regulatory structure beneath it. I have sketched the regulatory system for the insurance industry as well and explained the compensation arrangements in place for the users of the services of those great industries.
I recognise that a healthy insurance industry provides security for the many millions of commercial and private customers. The availability of insurance is a prerequisite to private sector investment. Life insurance and pensions are central to personal savings in the United Kingdom.
The total volume of annual business transacted by United Kingdom insurers is estimated at nearly £5·5 billion. The insurance industry is a major employer—more than a third of a million people are employed directly by it and some 80,000 more by insurance intermediaries. More than half that total employment is based outside London, with many working in the north of England and in Scotland.
Above all, insurance is a major earner of foreign exchange. In 1988, the net overseas earnings of the London market, including the substantial contribution from Lloyd's was £3·77billion. That amounted to more than half the United Kingdom's total invisible earnings from the financial services sector. A healthy and competitive insurance industry lies at the hub of the City.
I am glad to have had this opportunity to pay tribute to the insurance industry and to the numerous people who work in it, who make such a central contribution to our national economy. I am sad about the fate that has befallen my hon. Friend's constituents and I wish him every success in pursuing the campaign that he has made known to the House tonight. I am sure that many in the insurance industry will read the accounts of this debate in the newspapers and in Hansard in the days to come, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the matter to our attention.

Electoral Registration

Mr. Jeff Rooker: In discussing electoral registration, I should first make it clear that we in Britain have a right to vote but that that right is heavily qualified by the need to register. I think that it is generally accepted that about 7 per cent. of those eligible to be registered to vote are not registered. That may not sound very many, but in fact 2 million potential voters are missing from the register. In addition, the bureaucratic barriers erected when people move mean that a further substantial number are effectively ruled out and cannot exercise their right to vote.
I shall concentrate not so much on that aspect as on registration itself. I shall refer to some of the problems of electoral registration in the hope that a more positive attitude can be taken—not so much by the Home Office as by the electoral registration officers and the local authorities whose responsibility electoral registration is.
It is in the interest of our democracy that we should take a positive attitude to voter registration. It is a political as well as an administrative exercise. That point cannot be reinforced too strongly. As I have said, registration is carried out by local government and it seems that some areas of the country are still in the age of the quill pen in this respect, as an electoral registration officer who has moved out of the age of the quill pen pointed out to me.
The record on electoral registration is in contrast to the efforts put in by local and central government in respect of poll tax registration. There has been a massive investment in computers, staff training and grading, and resources generally. The exercise has been seen as a political activity simply because central Government grant to local authorities depends on the numbers on the register. More people on the register equals more Government grant equals less poll tax. That gives local authorities a great incentive to register as many people as possible. As a result, in many local authority areas, substantially more people are registered for poll tax than are registered to vote. The most famous case—if famous is the right word —is the city of Leeds, where I understand there are 20,000 more people on the poll tax register than on the electoral register.
The electoral register which is to come into force in February 1991, and which will reflect registration at 10 October this year, will be the most important electoral register for a decade. It will almost certainly be the register on which the next general election is fought and—in some ways, more important—it is the register upon which the next parliamentary boundary review will be based. Anyone who is aware of the fact that since the date of the last register, on which the present boundaries are based, 2·7 million more electors have registered in the English shire counties and 2·7 million fewer in the urban areas will understand how crucial the electoral register that is to be put together this October will be.
Some extensive and impressive research has been carried out over the years by the social survey division of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. I cite in particular the work of Jean Todd in a paper produced with Bob Butcher comparing registration in 1981 with the results of the census of the same year. It was an interesting


exercise. Jean Todd carried out similar work with Jack Eldridge on the electoral registration problems in inner cities in the mid-1980s.
Research has highlighted many of the shortcomings of our electoral registration system. With poll tax registration and the introduction of the poll tax, I and others detect fertile ground for the introduction of improvements to the system. First, however, I wish to outline some of the categories of eligible people who are likely not to be on the register.
My researches of the past few days have shown that there is a difficulty with service personnel. The problem relates as much to their spouses as to them. Electoral registration officers themselves have mentioned this problem. Houses in multiple occupation are a nightmare in virtually every part of the country, although they are primarily an urban problem. In some areas, shared letter boxes are a positive disaster for registration officers, as the research shows. Any dwelling converted into flats, bedsits or rooms is more likely to be missed out than non-converted dwellings.
Lodgers or friends of the family who live in larger households are also at risk, as I know from personal constituency experience. Some of these people, having lived in such households for three or four years, can still be missed off the register and not sent a form. I know of three or four examples of that from last year.
Youngsters between the ages of 16-plus and 18 whose 18th birthday falls at the end of the registration period also risk being missed. For instance, youngsters over the age of 16 years and eight months in October this year must be entered on the register, as they will be 18 before the end of the registration period in February 1992. So an accident of birthday can lead to many youngsters being missed off the electoral roll.
Other categories of eligible people who may be missed are equally worrying. Tenants of privately rented accommodation, by contrast with tenants of local authority accommodation or owner occupiers, stand a greater chance of being missed off the register. Members of households in which the head of the household is unemployed are in the same position.
The last problem is public apathy. I recently discovered that 50 paid-up members of my local constituency Labour party were not registered, even though they had lived at their addresses for well over 12 months. I believe that that matter will be raised in detail on another occasion, so I shall not pursue it now.
Studies have shown that as many as 30 per cent. of young people aged from late 16 through to 19 can be missed off the electoral register. Many 20 to 29-year-olds are also missing. One study that the Minister will know found that more than 20 per cent. of people aged between 20 and 29 were missing from the register in four of six study areas. It is strange that people in that age range seem to have such a propensity to be missed. That same study or the inner-city study found that 20 per cent. or more of the electors in households in which the head was of working age but not working were missing from the register. More than 20 per cent. represents a substantial number of people.
In the private rented sector research has identified omissions of more than 30 per cent. There are many reasons for such omissions, such as mail being addressed to the landlord or to "The Occupier" rather than to a

named person. As I have said, shared letter boxes also cause difficulties. Some of those factors, though not all, relate to inner-city areas.
Nationally, non-registration is estimated at 7 per cent., which means 2 million people. A study in inner London found that 14 per cent. of people who should have been on the electoral register were not. There is a big difference between the figures for Wales and Scotland. More than 9 per cent. are missing from the electoral register in Wales, while in Scotland the figure is 5 per cent. That is a substantial difference. In the west midlands, the average is 7 per cent., while in the east midlands it is 5 per cent. All in all, more than 2 million people are losing the right to vote. That is democratically unacceptable.
I do not have solutions for all the difficulties. but in some areas further effort and activity could improve matters. Britain is supposed to be a mature democracy but evidently we must look at voter registration and make people more conscious of it. It must be taken seriously, both politically and administratively. Those who do not consider it seriously will lose votes.
As the Minister will remind the House, most of these matters relate to the actions of electoral registration officers and the local authorities who operate the system at the point of sale. Local authorities know the date of birth of school pupils. That information could be transferred on a pupil's 16th birthday to the electoral registration officer, who could then send a letter to that pupil and to his parents informing them of the age at which people need to enrol on the electoral register. People could be told that a son or daughter needed to register at the next 10 October registration.
Drab notices on school notice boards or an announcement by the headmaster at the first assembly in the final school year are insufficient. That happens in some areas, but much more positive action is required. I was in Scotland in early 1988 to listen to the director of finance of Lothian, and the electoral registration officer who is also the poll tax registration officer—he has a different title from the one used in England. Those two officers told me that for electoral registration and poll tax purposes there is a positive attempt to transfer information about the dates of birth of school leavers. That means positive contact with young people and their families. I have not yet come across any local authorities which have taken the same positive stance in respect of electoral registration, although they may have done it for poll tax registration. Yet it can be done, and it is well within the law.
Likewise, all local authorities should have details of dwellings in multiple occupation in their locality. That information is important for many reasons—not least for housing benefit and for health and safety inspection. Local authorities should therefore know all such addresses. That information could be given to the electoral registration officer without difficulty to assist in the canvassing of electoral registration.
Details of bed-and-breakfast accommodation should also be passed to the electoral registration officer, particularly where information is known as a result of the operation of the housing benefit system. Local authorities also have information on hostels and refuges, especially for women and children who are victims of domestic violence. The problem here is that the addresses of such places are not usually advertised, mainly because the


women—99 per cent. of cases are women—are there for safety. That should not deprive them of the right to vote, but it does.
Under poll tax law, people who are in fear of physical violence or other danger can have their names removed from the public extract of the poll tax register, but there is no such provision under electoral law. If a person is not registered by name with an address, that person is not given a vote. People who want the right to vote but at the time of registration are living in a battered wives' refuge have to consider using a false name to register. I am told that so long as they disclose the fact to the electoral registration officer, using a false name could be acceptable. I should like a response on that from the Minister because there is a particularly difficult problem here.
The House has made provision under poll tax law for people to keep their names and addresses out of the public extract so that they cannot be found. We must ensure that they do not lose the right to vote through fear of being traced. There must be a way round the problem. Electoral registration is the only chance to use one's right to vote. We must do something. Thousands of people throughout the country live in hostels on the night of registration. I have checked some addresses. I know the addresses of some such hostels—and I have found only the name of the warden in the electoral register. No other people were registered there. The idea that a husband who beat up his wife so much that she had to fling the children from their home will put her on the register at the matrimonial home is ludicrous. I do not accept that argument.
To claim that the system could be abused is no excuse for ignoring the problem. A problem has been identified. We have a high rate of family break-ups not all of which result in violence. There is massive pressure in families and there is more violence in the family than there used to be. Action must be taken to ensure that women affected by domestic violence—it is mainly women who are affected —do not lose the right to vote. Some procedure must be made available to them.
Cardboard city also needs to be registered. It cannot be ignored. Cardboard city is a reality in some cities, particularly the capital city, although it has not yet come to Birmingham. Why should people lose their right to vote? If the tents at Greenham common, a ditch used regularly by a traditional tramp, or a patch of ground occupied by a fairground on the annual visit to a locality are legally acceptable addresses from which people can be registered for electoral purposes, cardboard city must have equal treatment. It is tragic that they should be necessary, but there must be equal treatment. That may institutionalise cardboard city, but until we seriously tackle the problems of the homeless and the rootless, we cannot pass by and say of such people, "It is their fault that they are unemployed and homeless, and now it is their fault that they have no right to vote." I hope that this year those who regularly inhabit cardboard city will obtain and complete a form, and if need be will pursue their right through the courts.
I was moved to make that point by a concerned constituent. On 29 June I was visited at one of my regular Friday surgeries by Mr. Robert Forrester of Hurlingham road. I am not aware of having met him previously, but many years ago his daughter, an animal welfare

campaigner, was one of my regular correspondents. Mr. Forrester contrasted the Government's efforts to register people who had gone abroad for up to 20 years—tax exiles, if you like—with the plight of the homeless. He told me, "In a democracy, it is not right that the homeless miss the chance to vote while people who have been abroad for up to 20 years do not."
In my more than 16 years as a Member of Parliament holding a constituency surgery every Friday and some Saturdays, Mr. Forrester was the first person at the head of a surgery queue to see me on a non-personal issue. As right hon. and hon. Members know, most surgery cases concern family difficulties or personal problems—the kind of things that we deal with day in and day out. Sometimes, a constituent will come into the surgery during the course of the evening and say, "I don't have a problem, but I want to bend your ear about something on which I hold strong views." Mr. Forrester had queued for about three hours, and I was both astonished and proud to receive from the first constituent in the queue representations on a fundamental democratic issue. Although I had been minded to raise the question of problems associated with election law and administration in a wider context, when I drew up the main points of my speech, those made by Mr. Forrester when he visited my surgery were among those uppermost in my mind.
As the Minister is aware—he was the Government Whip at the time—I served on the Committee which dealt with the poll tax legislation. I emphasise that maximum use must be made of the information available from the poll tax register. If there are 20,000 more on the poll tax register for Leeds than on the electoral register, I expect to see a change in electoral registration in respect of that city. The resources invested in the one must have a spin-off for the other.
It was once thought that people would lose the right to vote because they would fail to be added either to the poll tax register or to the electoral register, but it has not worked out like that. The resources and political activity devoted to poll tax registration have resulted in a situation that no one forecast when the legislation passed through the House. This may strike horror into the hearts of some electoral registration officers, but I would like to see a continuous electoral register. The poll tax register provides a daily record. It may not serve its intended purpose, because poll tax will not work, but if a person moves from one area to another the change is immediately reflected in the poll tax register.
The fact that this country does not have a fixed-term Parliament makes it even more difficult. In Europe, the Netherlands, Austria, West Germany, Switzerland, Denmark and Belgium—New Zealand has crept on to my list somehow—all have fixed-term Parliaments with continuously updated electoral registers. Italy, France, Finland, Portugal and Sweden have annual electoral registers and fixed-term Parliaments. We are in the minority in not having a fixed-term Parliament. The fact that we do not have a fixed-term Parliament, combined with our system of registration, is bound to lead to people missing out on the right to vote. I believe that it was last week that the Prime Minister said that she would call the next election only when she was certain of victory. How can one be certain of victory in a democracy?
Let us consider the barriers to registration. There are 2 million people missed off the electoral register. There are administrative and bureaucratic hurdles for people trying


to maintain the right to vote when they move around the country and do not have warning of elections. Those factors, combined with a Prime Minister who says that she will name the date only when she is certain of victory, are very worrying. I hope that the Minister will condemn that sort of attitude from a fellow Minister, albeit a senior fellow Minister, who talks about the certainty of victory.
Expenditure is not a problem. I do not know what the overall figure is, but the cost of electoral registration is infinitesimal compared with Home Office budgets and local government expenditure. There is certainly a case for upgrading staff in some areas. That is exactly what has happened with the poll tax register. Some electoral registration departments are still in the world of the quill pen—backwaters with low-grade staff. That is not conducive to an efficient up-to-date register, with a pro-active set of officers going out to ensure that everyone is registered.
There is an overwhelming case for expensive, effective publicity by local authorities and the Home Office. I do not mean the drab, public notice information with which we are so familiar. We need the slick, effective advertising associated with the Government's discredited privatisation programme. The programme may be discredited, but the advertising did the trick—it got the message across to people. Different advertising techniques have been employed by central Government for the privatisation programme, and for the Department of Trade and Industry's enterprise programme—Lord Young's legacy for 1992. That was a totally different form of central Government advertising—a heavy programme designed to put across a policy and a message, explaining to people the rights for which Parliament has legislated. That is absolutely right. I want a little of that to spin off so that voter registration is also taken seriously.
I have always told people that it is an offence not to register—this may be a learning process for all of us—but in fact it is not. It is an offence not to respond to the electoral registration officer's request for information. I do not know whether anyone takes that law seriously. I have not been able to find out whether an electoral registration officer has ever taken someone to court, or has tried to put the law into effect if people have flatly refused to return the forms after repeated invitations to do so. A breach of the law is involved, and possibly that matter will need to be looked into. It may be necessary to make examples of some people.
I make no apology for detaining the House on this issue at this time of the morning, because it is central to the core of democracy in this country. We are a democracy, and what we do not protect, we lose—it is as simple as that —so we have to look after it and nurture it. If democracy starts to wither, we have to do something about it. We keep preaching to the rest of Europe that we are the oldest sovereign Parliament in Europe—the Prime Minister keeps saying that that is what she tells her Common Market colleagues—but we have royal prerogative, Orders in Council, a Whip system, an unfair electoral system and, to boot, at least 2 million people with the right to vote are missed off the electoral register. We cannot boast about the way we run our democracy unless we are prepared to take voter registration seriously. That is why I have raised the subject.
I hope that the Minister will respond positively. I have the highest regard for him and I know that he considers this an extremely serious matter. This is not a party issue.

If people do not register, they lose their right to vote. Our job as legislators is to look after our democracy and to ensure that the maximum number of people have the right to vote. I hope that the Minister and I will join together on that central issue.

Mr. Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has raised a particularly important matter. I am sure that the House is grateful to him for having raised it, for it crosses the party divide. My hon. Friend invited the Minister to denounce the Prime Minister for having said that she would call the election only when she was confident of victory. Even though the junior ministerial reshuffle has been completed and the Minister has remained unscathed, or alternatively has been condemned to another 12 months at the Home Office, I am sure that he will not accept that invitation.
My hon. Friend made the important point that many people miss out on the right to vote. I am happy to support a number of his proposals—in particular, his proposal that there should be a continuous register. It has a great deal of merit.
I hope that the Minister will examine the different methods used by different electoral registration officers when they compile their registers. One finds different practices in different parts of the country. I believe that the Home Office is studying the different methods and is to report upon them in the fairly near future. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about the study and about when he thinks that he will be able to report to the House. Some electoral registration officers prefer the door-to-door method; others rely on the postal return; others wait until it becomes apparent that someone is no longer on the register. All these schemes may have advantages, but there is something to be said for learning from the best practice.
My hon. Friend's remarks about the homeless are also important. I represent an area where there is a large number of homeless people. Something needs to be done about getting them registered. It is not because they are unwilling to be registered or because they do not have somewhere to live. Many of them have no fixed abode because there is no fixed abode in which they can live. Generally they live in the same area.
There is not just the one ditch to which the tramp could point in the case that my hon. Friend had in mind. These people certainly live in the same general area, but they have no one place where they can be sure that they will be able to sleep on any particular occasion, or anything else that would establish their residence at one address. The Home Office ought to address that growing problem. That does not mean that I do not urge the Minister's colleagues in other Departments to address the question of removing the problem of homelessness, which is, of course, a far greater problem, once and for all.
I agree, too, with my hon. Friend's suggestion that imaginative publicity ought to be applied to electoral registration. It is an exceptionally good suggestion. The Government are prepared to spend large sums of taxpayers' money on selling the things that they think are worth while. In particular, the privatisation programmes show that imaginative publicity has been used to convince members of the public that industries that hitherto they


had been told were useless and inefficient are now very efficient, and that they ought to buy what they already own.
I must give the Minister and his colleagues some credit for that campaign; it had some limited success, at least at the start. It shows how imaginative publicity can be well used. As it appears from yesterday's announcement that PowerGen is to be sold privately, the money that was earmarked for that pre-sale publicity will no doubt be available for the purpose of getting people elected. That is a constructive suggestion that I am more than happy to make to the Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr made an important point when he said that in many parts of the country the poll tax register has more names on it than the electoral register. That is not the case uniformly, but it is true in some parts of the country. In Scotland, where we are in the second year of the poll tax, the poll tax register is undoubtedly much longer than the electoral register in some districts.
There is undoubtedly evidence that some people have wrongly decided that they can opt out of the poll tax by opting out of the electoral register. It must be emphasised to such people that the only way to defeat the poll tax is not to remove one's name from the register, but to get on to the register so that, at the next available opportunity, it is possible to vote the Government out of office. When people come off the register, it is a gift to those who support the poll tax.
I hope that those who think that, by coming off the electoral register, they are achieving something in the battle to defeat the poll tax will realise that that tactic is misguided and they merely run the risk of ensuring that the poll tax remains in place. I hope that people who have taken that course will realise that they have made a mistake and will ensure that their names are included on the electoral register this autumn.
Another point arising from what my hon. Friend said is the need for a substantial advertising campaign. It must be not merely a few advertisements in public libraries or an advertisement in a newspaper, but a television campaign, of which the public are made aware in the run-up to October. It is not too late for the Home Office to start planning it, if it has not already done so. The need for a national advertising campaign is exceptionally important, because it is in the national interest that as many people as possible are registered to vote at any election.
The money that has been allocated to encourage those overseas to register makes it obvious that no effort had been spared by the Government. I know that there is a caveat, in that it is impossible to compare the numbers of people living in a country and the amount of money allocated in an advertising campaign, because the relative costs are different. The Home Office estimates that there are 1,500 overseas electors in Jamaica, and the sum of £15,050 has been allocated for an advertising campaign, which means that there is about £10 for every elector. Perhaps such a figure per person would be a bit ambitious in this country, but there are other examples.
The Home Office thinks that there are two people in Romania who are eligible to vote as overseas electors, yet £10 has been allocated. Even with the increased charges for British Telecom calls, I should have thought that it would

be possible to telephone both those people for substantially less than £10. In Guatemala, 20 people are estimated to be eligible to vote, and £100 is being spent. I do not know the cost of advertising in the Guatemalan press or television, but I should be surprised if such expenditure per capita could be justified, especially when one considers that in Canada, where there are well over 1 million overseas electors, £45,805 has allocated.
Someone in the Home Office has consciously sat down, worked out the number of people in overseas countries and allocated specific budgets, which are not always round figures. In Australia, £32,486—a specific figure—has been allocated, although I admit that, in Angola, £30 has been allocated, which is a round sum. If such figures can be worked out for recruiting overseas electors, they can also be worked out for recruiting electors to the register in the United Kingdom.
I hope that the Minister will concede the need for a substantial national advertising campaign to get people on the register so that they may have the right to vote at the next election, whether local or general.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on securing this debate and I am glad to have the opportunity to reply to some of the points that he and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) have raised.
I know that the hon. Member for Perry Barr has taken a close and serious interest in this subject for a considerable time, not just because of his distressing experience—particularly for a Member for Parliament—of finding so many of his executive committee unregistered. I agree with a great deal of what he said—certainly his analysis of the problem and a number of his recommendations.
I share the concern expressed by the hon. Members for Perry Barr and for Edinburgh, Central about current levels of registration, which are lower than any of us would wish. For several years, increases in the number of registered electors have not kept pace with increases in the population. Figures produced by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys suggest—in the nature of the statistical exercise, it can be no more than a suggestion —that the decline set in after 1984 and has become more marked over the past three years.
That decline should be put in perspective. The proportion registering fell from 97·7 per cent. in 1984 to 96 per cent. in 1989. My figures differ from those given by the hon. Member for Perry Barr, but I have taken mine from the OPCS report. To put it in further perspective, the hon. Gentleman rightly said that, although the percentage is small, it adds up to many people—far more than we want to see not on the register. I believe that the 1990 figures, which will be published in full by the OPCS later this month, will show that the decline is levelling off.
As the hon. Member for Perry Barr said, we do not have a national system of electoral registration in this country, nor do we have a comprehensive register of the population of voting age in any form. Electoral registration is the responsibility of electoral registration officers, who have a statutory duty to prepare and publish each year a register of parliamentary and local government


electors in the area for which they act. They do so, in the words of the Representation of the People Act 1983, by means of a
house-to-house or other sufficient inquiry.
This leaves the choice of methodology, to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central referred, very much to electoral registration officers and the strategy that they adopt. In most cases, they distribute, by post or using personal canvassers, electoral form A, which requires householders to supply details of those eligible to be electors.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr is sceptical of the quality of some EROs, or at least of the work that they do. They are almost always chief executives of their local authorities and they usually appoint their own deputies. The Home Office cannot directly intervene to maintain or improve standards, confiscate the quill pen or substitute the information technology that the hon. Gentleman would like to see. In the last analysis, electoral registration officers, although they are local authority employees, are responsible not to the Home Office or their local authority but to the law. The courts decide whether the electoral officer is fulfilling his duties properly.
The Home Office is responsible for the statutory basis on which the registration system works, and we issue guidance to and provide a code of practice for registration officers in England and Wales, about which I shall say more in a moment. We also conduct an annual advertising and publicity campaign to encourage people to complete and return the registration form.
There are several possible reasons for the relative decline in electoral registration, including some mentioned by the hon. Member for Perry Barr, such as failure to register because of apathy or hostility to the electoral system or to what is seen as authority or bureaucracy in general, or because no general election is imminent. There is also, and it is surprisingly high, simple ignorance of the system, particularly among young people, which is why it is so important to reach them in the ways suggested by the hon. Gentleman. Changes in practice by registration officers, such as quicker or more thorough removal from the register of those who have died or moved away, can also have a marked effect.
At any one time, there are people on the register who should not be. The most recent major study into levels of electoral registration, following on from the 1981 census —the study to which the hon. Gentleman referred—found that the number involved was about equal to the number of eligible people who were left off. If registration officers decide to direct their attention to weeding out ineligible or dead people from the register, without increasing the number of eligible people who are coming on, obviously the figures will decrease.
That has happened in several constituencies, where the lists have been radically checked without the additional effort needed to get people who are entitled to register to do so. Changes in legitimate dual registration, for example, by students and second home owners, can also have an effect. Often, these people are on neither register.
Some hon. Members have made much of their belief—it was conspicuous that it was not expressed as it was in debates in which I have taken part—that the introduction of the community charge is the main cause for the relative decline in levels of electoral registration. I do not for a moment doubt the sincerity of those who argue in that way—although they are usually people who never miss an

opportunity to state their hostility to the idea of the community charge—and I would not deny that the introduction of the community charge may have had an effect on registration levels, due to people keeping themselves off the electoral register in the mistaken belief that, by doing so, they will avoid paying the charge. I was glad that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central made that point. It is a pity if people keep themselves off the register for that reason, as it removes their opportunity to vote in elections which affect what the charge level may be. The fact that they have none the less found themselves on the community charge list should have cured that misapprehension.
In practice, any such apparent "community charge effect" cannot be quantified, and there is certainly no evidence to suggest that it is a major factor. In many parts of the country it is difficult for people to avoid registration or to get off the register once they are on it. Research carried out on our behalf by the OPCS suggests that nearly 90 per cent. of local authorities in England and Wales carry names forward from one electoral register to the next, regardless of whether a response has been received from the householder, for at least one year. Around 25 per cent. carry names forward for two years or more. There will, therefore, tend to be a gap of at least one year, and sometimes longer, before the effect of any alleged disincentive to register shows up in the figures.
Looking at the trends in electoral registration with this consideration in mind, it is difficult to discern any direct correlation between decreases in registration and the introduction of the community charge in either Scotland or, a year later, in England and Wales. The downward trend clearly predates the introduction of the charge in both parts of Great Britain. As the OPCS observes in its recent publication "Population Trends 60", if the community charge has had an effect, the impact does not appear to be straightforward.

Mr. Darling: I am not sure that I am in a position to disagree with the Minister's general conclusions. I think that he would agree that it is a bit early yet, certainly in England and Wales, to conclude that people are not coming off the register because of the poll tax. There is some evidence that people are coming off the register in some parts of Scotland, which is in the second year of the poll tax. Equally, there is evidence in other areas that people are not coming off the register. At present, there is a mixed picture, although I reiterate the point that people who come off the register to avoid paying the poll tax are, first, making a mistake—because one day the authorities will catch up with them—and, secondly and more important, forfeiting the right to vote.

Mr. Lloyd: I do not have the figures written down, but I think that there has been an increase in the past year in the overall figures for Scotland. I expect that the figures for England and Wales will be published shortly. The signs are that the decline in England has dropped and in Wales the figures have increased. As the OPCS stated, if the community charge has had an effect, it is not particularly clear.
Whatever the cause of declining registration, the trend is very much a matter of concern, which is why I am grateful to the hon. Member for Perry Barr for raising this subject. The Government want the trend to be arrested and reversed. We are therefore extending and updating our


advice to electoral registration officers with a series of practice notes. The first two, on performance indicators and publicity, have been well received.
Last year, in addition to our annual newspaper advertising campaign, we conducted a pilot television advertising campaign in Devon and Cornwall, the results of which were quite promising. Funds are not available—nor has the creative approach to these problems been sufficiently worked out—for television advertising this year. In answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, we plan a non-television campaign for the autumn. I believe that that will be much more effective than the press campaigns that we have run in the past. Television, of course, remains a possibility for the future.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central referred to overseas advertising. We are spending some £750,000 on overseas advertising directed at potential electors—people who may be eligible to go on to the register. That is not a large sum, given the long list of countries that I believe the hon. Gentleman found in an answer from the Home Secretary; and, as was shown by the examples that he gave, the sum per country is also quite small. Let me make two points, however. First, this is one off; I think that it would be very wrong—Parliament having decided that the right to vote should be extended—if we did not make some effort to inform potential electors overseas. Secondly, we are advertising in this country, and, although the sum involved is smaller—just over £500,000—every potential elector here should have the registration form through his letter box, unlike overseas electors.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the £10 spent in Romania. I suspect that that relates not to advertising as such but to leaflets or posters. I also think that the hon. Gentleman has the argument the wrong way round. He seemed to think that the number of potential electors was put down and the money divided between them. I think that the odd sums that he gave stemmed directly from the cost of the media that we use in each country, but the cost varies from country to country. The "spend per head ratio" differs, because in each country we wanted to select at least the minimum possible media coverage in our efforts to reach people who might be eligible.
The OPCS is also carrying out, on our behalf, annual research into the methods used by registration officers. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central mentioned that. The results of the research will assist us in the preparation of future guidance: I cannot tell him now on what date it will be ready, but I hope that that date is not many months away.
Most important is our intention that the introduction of the community charge should actually benefit electoral registration. The hon. Members for Edinburgh, Central and for Perry Barr both remarked that the lists for the community charge were very much fuller. Our third practice note, which we expect to issue later this summer, will give registration officers guidance on how to make the most effective use of their statutory right of access to the community charge register: the hon. Member for Perry Barr was, I believe, particularly anxious for that to happen. In most cases, the community charge register will

be much more accurate and up to date than the electoral register as a source of information about people who may be eligible to vote but are not registered as electors.
Far from keeping people off the register, the community charge will in the longer run prove to be the means of getting them on to it. The Leeds figures mentioned by the hon. Member for Perry Barr provide an excellent example of where such work could start.
We take every opportunity to put across the message that, by staying off the electoral register, people merely deprive themselves of the right to vote. What is more—as any who have deliberately refrained from registering for this reason are no doubt discovering—it does not, in practice, enable them to avoid having to pay the charge. However, it certainly prevents them from voting in local elections—which affect the level at which the charge is set—and in parliamentary elections, in which the future of the system is determined.

Mr. Darling: The Minister said that £760,000 has been allocated to overseas voters. In the same answer, the Home Secretary said that £334,696 has not yet been allocated. Would the Minister consider using some or all of that sum to enhance the campaign in this country? He mentioned the Devon and Cornwall experiment on television. I appreciate that £300,000 will not buy much television time, but I do not think that newspaper campaigns alone are enough.

Mr. Lloyd: We do not intend to campaign only in newspapers, but we will not be using television. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that £300,000 or so will not go very far. I am not certain where that £300,000 was to be allocated, but I suspect that it has already been allocated. When the question was answered, it probably had not been dedicated to any particular medium in any particular country. However, I will let the hon. Gentleman know.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr asked about several specific points and I shall deal with them in turn. He mentioned the registration of spouses of service men. I know from my constituency that there is occasionally a difficulty about the registration of service men, and they do not always get themselves registered. However, I was not aware of the difficulties involving their spouses, as they can register in the normal way in the area in which they live. If the hon. Gentleman can follow that up, I shall look into it further.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned multi-occupancy. I agree that that is a real problem, particularly as the residents in large multi-occupied dwellings are often young. They tend to be mobile and are just the sort of people who do not register. Things are made worse by shared letter boxes and registration forms getting lost. However, as he said, I suspect that the best way of tackling the problem must be locally, by those with some local knowledge. Thought needs to be given to it, because I suspect that many people would be happy to be on the register—some are not—if the form turned up.
The problem of bed and breakfast is similar to that which I have already mentioned, and I have partly dealt with the problem of young people. The hon. Member for Perry Barr mentioned the 1981 study, which showed that a large proportion of young people do not come on to the register. Electoral registration officers are aware of that. Many of them are making efforts through the schools—I believe that that is the case in Birmingham—with some


good results. Leaflets are available for use in schools if electoral registration officers wish to use them. The form that goes to every household emphasises the need to put 16 and 17-year-olds on the register. The advertising we will be introducing particularly addresses the young. I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's idea for a letter to every schoolchild or every household—I am not sure which. Experiments such as that, conducted by electoral registration officers, could prove valuable, especially if the results could be made generally known.

Mr. Rooker: The local authorities know the age of pupils coming up to school leaving age. The crucial time for registration is about 16 years and seven or eight months, depending on the date of birth. The electoral registration officer could write to the family and the 16-year-old and say, "If your date of birth means that you are 16 years and eight months you need to be on this year's register when it comes." It is a proactive campaign to get to the young, rather than having to rely on the head of a school.
I know what happens in schools. A drab notice that nobody reads will go up or in September at the first assembly for the final year and the head may say, "By the way, some of you may need to get yourselves on the electoral register." If that was announced in the first assembly for the final year, together with everything else, it would go in one ear and out the other. There must be a more proactive approach, and the mechanism already exists for such an approach.

Mr. Lloyd: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I should be interested to learn whether he is trying to persuade the authorities in Birmingham to use that approach.
I understood the point that the hon. Member for Perry Barr made about battered wives. I appreciate the fear felt by women who have suffered violence from their husbands or other members of their families at the prospect that they might be discovered if they have sought to escape such violence. However, there is no evidence that the register is used to pursue people. It is difficult to look through registers to find a name that one recognises. However, I understand that the fear exists and I would be interested to hear from the hon. Gentleman if he has an example of the register being used in that way.

Mr. Rooker: I will not go into the details now. However, I have learnt from the electoral registration officer in Birmingham and from discussions with EROs elsewhere that, because the poll tax allows women the right not to be named on that register, those women want to know why they cannot have the same right with respect to the electoral register. They are losing their rights to vote because they do not register as they are afraid of being found.
If someone knows roughly the area in which someone else moves around, it is quite easy to trawl through the electoral register. It is not as difficult as we might imagine. It is different if someone is moving from one authority to another, but within small areas, people can have a rough idea where other people may have gone. The poll tax operation is causing women in hostels to ask why, as they can be missed off that register, they cannot be missed off the electoral roll, as that would protect their right to vote. Those women are losing the right to vote. The Minister can check that by getting his staff to visit some refuges and

battered wives hostels. He should check how many of those names appear on the electoral registers. He can bet his bottom dollar that those people were living in those places on 10 October last year.

Mr. Lloyd: Well, as I have said, we have no evidence of that. If the hon. Gentleman can supply some, I should he interested to see it. I understand that the fear exists, and I can understand why those wives would want to know why they should be visible on the electoral register when they do not have to be so on the community charge register. However, the two documents have different purposes. The electoral register is a public document showing all those who may vote. It is easier to pursue someone if that person's name is visible on the community charge register, because that register is set out in a different way. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am afraid that there is no easy solution to that problem.
I noted the hon. Gentleman's point about the adoption of other names for the register. He asked whether that was legal. It would not be illegal to use a maiden name, but the hon. Gentleman and the woman concerned would not consider that a particularly good cover. I am pretty certain that it is not lawful to register under a false name by which the individual is never otherwise known. There is a problem there. However, I would be interested in any evidence that the hon. Gentleman can supply about that. I have no such evidence, but I have heard the point made many times without the evidence.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to homelessness, to Mr. Forrester and cardboard city, and he said that being homeless should not preclude registration. Well, it does not. The courts are the final authority in the matter. They require some degree of permanence, and that degree is for the courts to determine. Greenham Common, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is an example where permanence was sufficient for those people to come on to the register. In the first place, it is for the ERO to judge. However, if an indvidual believes that he or she should be on the register, that person should apply to be on it. If that is refused, the final judge is not the ERO or me; it is the courts.
The hon. Gentleman made two more points, one of which was about the rolling register. It is an attractive idea. He will understand that, like the EROs whom he mentioned, I remain sceptical of its practicability. There are several problems. First, it would make the individual rather than the ERO responsible for getting on to the register. The hon. Gentleman might think that that was a small shift in responsibility that was more theoretical than real, but it would be a substantial change in the way in which the law is organised. Secondly—the Home Affairs Select Committee had this point in mind when it rejected the idea at some time in the mid 1980s—it might tempt some people to register in a marginal constituency shortly before an election in order to influence the result. It is an interesting idea.
With the development of the community charge register and with local experience of keeping it running, attitudes to the practicability of the rolling register may change. It certainly would be an additional expense, and it would certainly be administratively difficult. We would have to keep the two registers separate, because the duty to pay the community charge and the right to vote are not synonymous, and that distinction needs to be kept. There is a real and particular problem in pursuing such an idea


now, but of course something may be learned over the next few years in keeping registers that may be to the hon. Gentleman's advantage—or rather, to the advantage of his idea.

Mr. Rooker: I am grateful for the way in which the Minister is responding to that point. He must appreciate that it is more important in a country that does not have a fixed-term Parliament to have a mechanism whereby the register is as up to date as possible, as opposed to the system in countries in which there are fixed-term Parliaments. The whole democratic and political process is geared to those dates. In Germany, a register is available for the 15th or 20th day for a final check before the election. When there is not a fixed-term Parliament, the idea is more attractive. The poll tax operation begins to make it look like a practical proposition. That is why it is a fertile time to put that view forward.

Mr. Lloyd: It may be a fertile time or a good time to signal additional interest. It is not a practical possibility for the near future, but I can see the advantages that the hon. Gentleman paints for such a scheme if it proved to be practical. Administratively, it would be considerable. I have often heard from the Opposition how impossible it is to keep up the community charge list. Perhaps it is not as difficult as all that, but it is quite an exercise for local authorities, as they are not slow to remind us.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the law. It is an offence not to fill in and return the form, and the penalty is £400. I am not sure whether some prosecutions to make an example of somebody who does not fill in the form would be a useful way of persuading people that it was sensible and right and a public duty to vote. Indeed, I suspect—

Mr. Rooker: It is a public duty to register.

Mr. Lloyd: It is a public duty to register. I know that the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting it, but, while I have been taking an interest in these subjects, it has stuck in my mind that some of those who do not register believe that it is their right, or should be their right, not to register, and certainly their right to vote for nobody at all if they wish.

Tibet

Sir Bernard Braine: Two weeks ago an international conference on self-determination for Tibet was held at the London business school. It was sponsored by the all-party human rights group and the all-party Tibet group of both Houses of Parliament and the United States congressional human rights foundation. It drew together 126 parliamentarians and experts in international law and human rights from 41 countries to look at nothing else than the worst case of genocide and violation of human rights against a people and their homeland since the second world war.
I have never attended a conference at which there was such great strength of feeling and concern. It was the third international conference on Tibet to be held in just over a year. The first was in Delhi, which I attended, and the second in Japan where messages of support were received from the Japanese Prime Minister. All three conferences brought together a unique fund of parliamentary, diplomatic and legal experience to bear on the critical and tragic situation in Tibet.
Fourteen international lawyers or professors of international law participated, including the Attorney-General of Australia who is also chairman of the Australian section of the International Commission of Jurists, two Australian judges, both members of the International Commission of Jurists—one of whom, Mr. Justice Kirby, is chairman of the UNESCO expert group on the rights of peoples. The French professor of international law acted as the group's rapporteur. The head of the international affairs department of the Jawaharlal Nehru university in Delhi, a former United States Attorney-General, and the Minister of Justice of Zimbabwe also participated. Jointly, they made it clear that international jurists recognise that there is simply no legal validity to China's claims to Tibet—we have passed beyond the stage of legal arguments. There is no room for debate—Tibet should be free.
Representatives from the Baltic states drew attention to the parallel between their situation and that of Tibet, having no doubt of Tibet's right to independence. They were well represented with a member of the Lithuanian Supreme Council and foreign relations committee attending with the Deputy Chairman of the Latvian Supreme Council and the Chairman of the Congress of Estonia. Of particular significance was the presence of two founders of the Mongolian Democratic Union who made quite clear their commitment to Tibetan independence.
President Vaclav Havel, who, soon after taking office, invited His Holiness the Dalai Lama to visit Czechoslovakia, was represented at the conference by his brother. The Federal Republic of Germany, Austria, Costa Rica, the Netherlands and India all sent representatives from their embassies in London. The Icelandic Prime Minister attended in person. Alas, the British Government declined to be represented, even by an observer. Was this out of concern at possible Chinese reaction? I can think of no other reason.
The world was rightly shocked by the events in Tiananmen square, but so muted was Government responses to a dress rehearsal in Lhasa, when a non-violent demonstration by Tibetans was put down with the same mass brutality and martial law was declared in Tibet, three


months prior to its introduction in Peking that, inevitably, the Chinese must have been encouraged to think they could weather the outcry over Tiananmen square.
Now is the time for the civilised world to take its stand on Tibet. The charge of genocide is not arrived at lightly, but the evidence is clear.
The number of persons who perished in Tibet between 1959 and 1979 by execution or as a direct result of imprisonment and torture, or being consigned to a forced labour camp, or from the wide-scale famine engendered by the policies of the People's Republic of China, is in the region of 1 million—about one sixth of the total population. True, this includes the period of the cultural revolution in China itself, but that destruction of human life and onslaught on a distinct culture is not, as the Chinese suggest, part of the cultural revolution.
One in every 10 Tibetans have been held in prisons or forced labour camps for periods of 10 to 28 years. All the 75 Tibetans now living in this country have tragic tales to tell of what has befallen their families. At our conference a young monk of 24, born and brought up under the Chinese regime, spoke of his experiences. The Institute for the Victims of Torture says that his is the worst case that it has encountered. He has severe damage to his ribs, spine and throat. His crime was the writing of slogans calling for Tibetan independence.
Racial discrimination and segregation are widespread, and frequently openly practised. Long-standing Chinese officials manifest all the worst attributes of colonialism, regarding themselves as having to work in an inhospitable land, governing a people who cannot be trusted and whom they regard as barbarous, stupid and superstitious.
The policy of taking Tibetan children to China, ostensibly for education, continues with no choice being given but with the evident object of ensuring that the young are assimilated.
Despite official encouragement, few Chinese in Tibet bother to learn Tibetan, and although it is meant to be a second language in schools, Tibetan students must speak Chinese to be able to achieve anything.
It is that attitude of racial superiority which prevails among the field workers in the family planning units in Tibet, resulting in the brutal implementation of a programme of compulsory abortion and the sterilisation of women. According to the Chinese, this is part of a general family planning drive, but it is particularly offensive to Tibetans who are Buddhists and are reluctant to have abortions, and it appears much more as part of the effort quickly to assimilate the race.
The Chinese authorities admit to forced sterilisations. They say that the practice ended with the cultural revolution in 1979, but there is ample evidence that it continues. On 29 May, the Chinese authorities said that 18,000 women in central Tibet had volunteered for sterilization—out of 600,000 of child-bearing age. I am advised that the attitude of the Chinese medical personnel towards the Tibetans results in forced abortions at any time during pregnancy, and there have also been cases of infanticide.
I need hardly draw attention to the parallels with Nazi methods and the Nazis' attitude towards people whom they considered inferior. Indeed, the similarities are even more disturbing in the light of the increasing official interest in eugenics and official statements that there should be "qualitative control" of minority peoples. China Population News published an article a few months ago

stating that it is much more common to find persons who are mentally retarded or short of stature among the minority nationalities than among the Han Chinese. The implication is that such characteristics justify the need to take family planning firmly in hand.
In a particularly perverse twist, forced family planning is being publicised as an example of preferential treatment for people of ethnic minority nationalities, 100,000 of whom are cited as being handicapped. I need hardly tell the House that such trends were not noticed by those who spent many years in Tibet prior to the occupation and are certainly not apparent among the Tibetan refugee population in India.
There can be no doubt of the long-term policy of the Chinese leadership for the assimilation, as they term it, of China's national minorities, particularly through settlement by the Chinese. For example, Mongolians in inner Mongolia are now a minority in their own land.
Tibet was self-supporting before the Chinese invasion. The country has known famine only since Chinese occupation, by an army of 300,000 and since the steady influx of settlers, whose numbers are dramatically increasing. In all major Tibetan cities, the preponderance of Chinese is evident, with the Tibetans increasingly forming a poor quarter. Some 30,000 Tibetans in the Lhasa valley have lost their jobs to Chinese settlers, who are given financial incentives to settle and provided with superior services.
Forcible movement of children, a high death toll, enforced sterilisation and population transfer all add up to genocide. Let me demonstrate what this means in individual terms. If I held up the Tibetan flag in Lhasa today, I would be liable to be shot dead, or at least arrested and tortured in an attempt to persuade me to inform on others whom I might know shared my sentiments. I would be a counter-revolutionary seeking to split the motherland. I would be guilty of treason if I held up the flag of the Tibetan people. At a recent demonstration, a monk was shot in the head for holding the flag aloft. When, in turn, five Tibetans picked up the flag, they too were shot. This cannot be tolerated by the civilised world. It must be condemned.
Some 3,000 to 4,000 Tibetans are currently in prison for so-called "splittist" or counter-revolutionary activity. What sort of country is that? They have simply shouted slogans demanding independence, or have displayed the Tibetan flag.
Last April, Lhasa television announced that in the struggle against subversion the people must deal with hostile elements with an iron fist. That is the language of Stalin and Hitler.

Mr. David Atkinson: In view of what my right hon. Friend has just told the House in his characteristically dramatic way, does he agree that the occupation and annexation of Tibet, which took place in the 1950s, was exactly the same as that which the Soviet Union perpetrated in Afghanistan in 1979, an act which the Chinese condemned as hegemony? Does my right hon. Friend regret, as I do, that the condemnation of the Soviet Union in the United Nations by the west has never been accompanied by a condemnation by the west of what China has done to Tibet?

Sir Bernard Braine: The behaviour of the Chinese in Tibet is infinitely worse than what the Russians did during their invasion of Afghanistan.
In the past few months Tibetan nuns have been expelled from their convents, as have monks from their monastery —18 of them from the ruins of Gaden monastic university.
On 18 May the executions of two political activists were announced and a third had his sentence of death suspended for two years after informing the authorities that they had all planned to escape from prison. An official announcement said that the two had written letters showing determination to continue their crime on escaping from prison. That showed that they were held on political charges.
What is meant by political activity? A law just passed by the National People's Congress in Peking states
that Tibetans may not use religion or other activities to organise rallies, demonstrations or parades that will endanger the state's unification or destroy national unity or social stability.
Let us consider the case of Nyima Tsamchoe who escaped recently from Tibet. She is 19 and at our conference she described what happened to persons accused of being involved in a demonstration. Nyima has also given extensive evidence to the United Nations commission on torture, to Amnesty International and to other human rights organisations. In addition, evidence has been supplied to the political affairs committee of the European Parliament, which recently held an inquiry on Tibet. Nyima considers that the abuse and the torture to which she was subjected was mild compared with that inflicted on young nuns. Members may have seen the extracts on television news some months ago from a video shot by personnel of the Chinese public security bureau, showing the Chinese brutally putting down a demonstration and their subsequent treatment of those arrested. The Chinese authorities make no apologies for their use of electric batons or cattle prods.
It is easy to forget what escaping from Tibet means for people like Nyima and Nawang, the young monk. It does not mean just crossing a border. Tibetans have to have permits to move about their own country and are registered with a work unit which checks their movements. To escape, they have to cross the highest mountains in the world. Yet these are ordinary people, not professional mountaineers. It can sometimes take weeks or months to reach safety. The route to Nepal is the easiest, except that the border guards usually hand refugees back to the Chinese. One hundred and thirty thousand Tibetans have escaped since 1959, but almost as many have perished in the attempt.
In that profoundly Buddhist country, entry to the monasteries is controlled by the Chinese administration and serious study is prohibited or, at best, very limited. While most of us probably realise Tibet is the highest country in the world, perhaps not everyone realises that it is four times the size of France and is the principal watershed of the Asian continent. Almost all Asia's great rivers rise in Tibet—among them, the Indus, Ganges, Mekong, Yangtze and Salween. Ecologically, Tibet is crucial to a vast area of Asia, but something sinister is happening to its environment. The delicate environmental balance has been severely damaged, and that is already affecting neighbouring countries. The Chinese have

decimated Tibet's wildlife, so that much of it has gone for ever. Vast tracts of forest in east Tibet have been felled and there is a constant flow of timber back to China.
With a great sense of urgency and responsibility, the London conference issued its declaration urging specifically the United Kingdom, the United States, India and Japan and other nations, first, to pursue the question of the rights of Tibet through the United Nations and other appropriate forums; secondly, to take account of this tragic and continuing situation in all bilateral and multilateral relations with the People's Republic of China; thirdly, to advance the just cause of Tibetan self-determination and to recognise the non-violent nature of the Tibetan struggle; fourthly, to give due recognition to the Tibetan Government in exile and to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, recipient of the Nobel peace prize and honoured wherever he goes, as the representative of the Tibetan people until such time as properly constituted elections can be held under the supervision of the United Nations.
Before it is too late, we must recognise the situation for what it is—one of the worst, if not the worst, oppression inflicted on any country since the second world war. We are witnessing the destruction of a distinct and peaceful people. China says that there are about 2.5 million Tibetans. That is because it has already absorbed a third of the country into neighbouring Chinese provinces. The policy of encouraging Chinese settlement in Tibet through subsidies and better facilities than those enjoyed by the Tibetans results in a virtual system of apartheid, as any visitor to a Tibetan town will see for himself.
In 1961, 10 years after the Chinese occupation of Tibet and following the Tibetan rebellion against the Chinese and the terrible exodus over the Himalayas of 100,000 Tibetans, the International Commission of Jurists issued a report stating that Tibet was at the very least a de facto independent state when it was occupied, and that acts of genocide and extensive violation of human rights had already take place. In the same year, a resolution was passed by the United Nations General Assembly specifically referring to the violation of Tibetans' fundamental human rights and the suppression of their culture and religion. It then
solemnly renews its call for the cessation of practices which deprive the Tibetan people of their right to self-determination.
Fifty six countries voted in favour, the then eastern bloc of 10 countries voted against, and 29 countries abstained. A further resolution was passed in 1965. I am glad to say that our country was among those which voted for that resolution.
The situation is now critical, with Tibet having perhaps five years before it disappears effectively as a separate people and culture. Tibetans are about to become a minority in their own homeland, and their rich culture will become a mere facade for tourists bringing vital foreign exchange for China.
For those seeking to avoid the Tibetan issue by citing uncertainty over its status, the message from the international lawyers at the London conference could not have been clearer. It endorsed the view of the legal inquiry committee of the International Commission of Jurists that at the very least Tibet was a de facto independent state when its representatives were forced in Peking to agree to the occupation in 1950. The committee stated that the repudiation of the agreement by the Tibetan Government


in 1959 was fully justified. In examining the evidence, the committee took account of events in Tibet as related in authoritative accounts by officials and scholars at first hand with the recent history of Tibet and official documents which have been published. These show that from 1913 to 1950 Tibet demonstrated the conditions of statehood as generally accepted under international law. In 1950 there was a people, a territory and a Government functioning in that territory and conducting their own domestic affairs free from any outside authority.
In short, after 1950 Tibet's status was such as to make the Tibetan question of legitimate concern to the United Nations, even on the restrictive interpretation of matters
essentially within the domestic jurisdiction
of a state, as is strongly argued by China. That was the view of the committee of the International Commission of Jurists. It should be added that, although there had been incursions prior to the Chinese occupation, Tibet had never been occupied in its 2,000–year history. Even the British expeditionary force which went into Tibet in 1904 stayed for only a few months. A leading authority on Tibet with a distinguished diplomatic record in the British Foreign Service has said:
when the British ruled India, their primary interest in Tibet was to avoid influence in Tibet being obtained by any other state that might use it to disturb India's Himalayan frontier.
The British accepted the Chinese myth of the Middle Kingdom, that Tibet was part of their sphere of influence to discourage the Russian Tsars who sought to establish a position in Tibet. Indeed it was direct contact between the then Dalai Lama and the Russians which caused the British military expedition to take place in 1904. Even so, Britain treated Tibet right up to 1947 as a de facto state with which it was in treaty and had diplomatic relations.
Britain still has a vital role to play in relation to Tibet, as the London conference recognised. Indeed, the term "suzerainty", which has caused Tibet so many problems, was conceived by the British, drawn from European feudal law in the middle ages, relating to personal relationships between sovereign princes as, for example, in connection with the sultan of Turkey and the khedive of Egypt and areas which had been part of the Ottoman empire but which the sultan no longer controlled. It can have no significance whatever in the modern world.
Anthony Eden, when Foreign Secretary, spelled out to the Chinese in 1943 that Tibet had enjoyed de facto independence and that Britain was in treaty relations with her. Ingeniously, he suggested that Britain was nevertheless willing to accept that China had suzerainty over Tibet, but on the understanding that it accepted Tibet's autonomy which, it was made clear, equated with de facto independence.
I repeat that throughout the first half of this century the interpretation of Tibet's status was perfectly clear. Britain saw it as covering Tibet's complete internal freedom, its right to conduct its own external affairs without reference to China, its right to conclude treaties, and its right to receive diplomatic agents. In short, the offer made to the Chinese by Anthony Eden was to recognise nominal Chinese suzerainty on condition that China accepted it as nominal—an offer which, I must agree, China rejected.
Britain's view was inevitably influenced by the handover of power to India and was guided henceforth by the wishes of India, which was desperate for good relations with China. Ironic, was it not, when China stabbed India in the back, breaking Mr. Nehru's heart? In 1948,

however, a Tibetan delegation travelling on Tibetan passports was received by Prime Minister Attlee. In 1950, with the Chinese invasion of Tibet, an Under-Secretary of State recalled in this House the assurances given to the Tibetan Government in 1947 about Tibet's autonomy, which he described as amounting to de facto independence. When the Indian Government, anxious to pursue good relations with China, tried to persuade the Tibetan Government against bringing the matter up at the United Nations, however, the British representative supported his Indian colleague, saying that Tibet's legal position was not clear.
China has latched on to that ever since, and Britain has been virtually hoist by its own petard—fearing now, as the Government have made clear, repercussions on Hong Kong. Yet is this not, as our colleagues in another place said in their recent debate, no less than appeasement—the turning of a blind eye to a massive crime against a defenceless people?
Last November another international consultation was convened at UNESCO headquarters to review the notion of the rights of peoples in international law. The participants were of the highest calibre; they were drawn from every corner of the world and represented a wide variety of cultures. They examined the United Nations charter, the international human rights covenants, and the developing customary law of nations. They concluded unanimously that people have such rights—that such rights are recognised in international law, and most especially the right of a people to self-determination.
A people for this purpose can be easily identified by race and language, history and religion, by numbers sufficiently large to provide cohesion and, above all, the will to be identified as a nation. The Tibetans qualify as a subject of international law on each and every one of those grounds. They are therefore entitled to exercise the right of self-determination, and the denial of that right is a breach of international law.
Alas, no international sheriff can be sent to enforce the rule of international law, but there is the force of international public opinion, which can be expressed around the world by Governments and by free Parliaments. That is all that Tibet has. Can we really stand aside when the Tibetans alone in the world have turned away from the use of arms?
I was present in Oslo last year when His Holiness the Dalai Lama received the Nobel peace prize. In his acceptance speech, he said:
During this time"—
he was speaking of the past 40 years—
over a million of our people perished and more than six thousand monasteries—the seat of our peaceful culture—were destroyed. There is not a single family, either in Tibet or among the refugees abroad, which has gone unscathed. Yet, our people's determination and commitment to spiritual values and the practice of non-violence remain unshaken …The demonstrations which have rocked Tibet for the past two years continue to be non-violent despite brutal suppression. Speaking of the cruel and inhumane treatment of his people, His Holiness warned that they
are facing the real possibility of elimination as a people and a nation. The government of the People's Republic of China is practising a form of genocide".
Surely it is time for the international community to return to first principles. China may be a mighty power, and its aggressive style of diplomacy may have cowed other nations into accepting human rights behaviour in China and Tibet that has long been regarded as


unacceptable in the Soviet Union, South Africa, and elsewhere. History and common sense show, however, that in the long run it will be to China's benefit, and to that of everyone else, if it is reminded that if it wants to be a respected member of the international community it must accept international norms of behaviour. The world is too interdependent for civilised countries to stand aside and show indifference or funk, whichever term one cares to choose, in the face of the deliberate destruction of a unique people and a unique culture.
We are growing accustomed to conferences on the disappearance of species of whales and other endangered wildlife. Hardly a day passes without articles on that subject appearing in our newspapers or a television programme on the same topic—and rightly so. We should be made aware of what is happening to our environment and to life on this planet. I have no criticisms to make of that—I should like to see more of it. The media also constantly remind us of the man-made destruction of the rain forests and of the loss for ever of rare flora and fauna. Today, however, here in the British Parliament, I am talking about the systematic destruction of a whole race of human beings.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister this simple question: Is the perceived self-interest of our country so short term that we can afford to continue to ignore the plight of Tibet and its people? That question must be addressed, and it must be addressed urgently.

Mr. George Foulkes: The Father of the House deserves the congratulations of us all, not only on obtaining this debate but on his persistence with this and many other matters in which the violation of human rights is a central issue. He demonstrates a powerful and influential interest, as does my noble Friend Lord Ennals and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who apologises for being unable to be with us today.
The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) deserves congratulations also for the powerful and convincing case that he has put to the House this morning. It is the retiring—or should I say promoted—UnderSecretary of State's duty to be with us this morning and to make his pre-penultimate speech on behalf of the Foreign Office. It is his unfortunate duty to answer on behalf of the Government—in all courtesy, perhaps I should congratulate the Minister on his promotion, and I think that his new post will offer him a more interesting and amenable opportunity for his talents—while the Minister of State, now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I think, who would have normally dealt with the matter, is on a somewhat misguided, and now abortive, mission to China and Hong Kong.
I am sure that the Father of the House would agree that the Minister's visit to China is in clear breach of the Madrid declaration. In a written reply to me on 27 June, the Minister confirmed that, in Peking, he would be discussing not merely practical issues in relation to Hong Kong—which is understandable—but also other issues of common interest. At this stage, that is certainly not understandable.
We very much hope that the Minister of State's visit to China will not be viewed in any way or by anyone as an act of forgiveness, or as a sign that we have forgotten the horrors of Tiananmen square or the human rights violations in Tibet. Indeed, I hope that the Minister will tell the Chinese Government what he said on BBC radio yesterday, and will express the great concern of the British people at the continuing repression in China, and that he will add our concern about the continuing violations of human rights in Tibet.
The right hon. Member for Castle Point has outlined in great detail, powerfully and convincingly, the brutality of the Chinese authorities in Tibet. I shall develop that by comparing what we hear about the situation—what we know about it—and what the Chinese people are told is happening there. For example, the Financial Times of 23 May reported that:
Up to 2,000 people were executed, and many more tortured, during the six months before China lifted martial law in Lhasa … Human rights groups and dissidents have told of a concerted and brutal attempt by Chinese soldiers to crush resistance before Peking moved to end 14 months of martial law … on 1 May.
That is the reality that we hear.
Meanwhile, a headline in the Beijing Review one month earlier said:
Stability is Order of the Day".
The article continued:
the situation in Lhasa … has returned to normal since martial law was imposed on parts of the city"—
2,000 people executed in six months and they have the audacity to describe it as normal.
Like the right hon. Member for Castle Point, I know what I am inclined to believe—I know the true situation in Lhasa. Whatever one's view of Tibetan autonomy claims, and there may be differing views in the House, there can be no excuse for such repression and brutality. I hope that, at the very least, the Minister replying for the Government will make that abundantly clear this morning.
Tibet is not merely a human rights but also a political problem—as the right hon. Member for Castle Point rightly said—which seemed to be increasingly understood in Peking in the months until the beginning of 1989, as part of the increasing dialogue and openness in China. However, since the crackdown of March 1989, the prognosis has been much bleaker, and regression and repression within China, following Tiananmen square, have added to the difficulties in resolving the problem of Tibet, the basic elements of which remain exactly the same.
However, the British Government have been totally unwilling to extend the hand of friendship, or even to turn a sympathetic ear, towards Tibet, as the right hon. Member for Castle Point said, and as the Government have admitted, for fear of upsetting China and rocking the boat over Hong Kong. It shows a very warped sense of priorities for a Prime Minister who refuses even to shake hands with Nobel laureate the Dalai Lama to slink off and dine with the Chinese ambassador, even before the first anniversary of the massacre in Tiananmen square, and to repeat that dinner engagement.
The right hon. Member for Castle Point referred to the conference in London and to the many eminent legal representatives who attended it and expressed eminent legal opinions. I quote just one such opinion from the publication "International Relations" of May 1989. In a long but learned treatise on Tibet, Mr. Michael C. van Walt van Praag concluded:
From a legal standpoint, Tibet has to this day not lost its statehood.
Equally, as the right hon. Member for Castle Point knows only too well, many of us—I am one of them—have had it made absolutely clear to us by all Chinese Government representatives—the Chinese ambassador here and all his staff and all those that I and others met in China before the massacre in Tiananmen square; no official Opposition representatives have met Chinese Government representatives since then—that they maintain their claim that, for centuries, if not millennia, Tibet has been part of China.
What is, however, indisputable is that there is a dispute over the legal position of China's sovereignty over Tibet. We believe that the dispute should be resolved peacefully and that western Governments have a responsibility, as the right hon. Member for Castle Point said, to urge that upon the Chinese Government, using every means at our disposal, in every way that we can and with all the power that we can muster. The British Government have been less than active, less than bold and less than courageous in their attempts to persuade, press and urge the Chinese Government to do that.
We should tell the Chinese Government that, if they want to gain any acceptance and legitimacy in the modern world, if they want to trade with us and if they want us to invest with them, they must respect human rights and resolve disputes in a humane, peaceful and civilised way. That is the only way in which they will be accepted into the international community.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): As usual, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) has made a powerful and eloquent presentation of the position in Tibet. Before I respond to his speech, I hope that he will excuse me if I say what a pleasure it is to see my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) on the Front Bench. I congratulate him on his elevation to a particularly important post. I thank also the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) for his comments about my new post, which I look forward to taking up later today.
To turn to the important subject of the debate, it may be helpful if I first remind the House of the events of the last two years. For over two years, Tibet has been the scene of sporadic outbreaks of unrest and violent demonstrations, to which my right hon. Friend referred on a number of occasions. They were led by young Buddhist monks and nuns demanding independence from China.
The first of those demonstrations was on 27 October 1987 and it was followed by further unrest that, by the Chinese reckoning, left two Tibetans and one Chinese dead. In March 1988, Amnesty International claimed that 20 people had been killed. Police opened fire on unarmed demonstrators in December 1988, killing between six and eight people. Further riots in March 1989 led to the imposition of martial law. We have had no reports of further major disturbances since that time, although, according to press reports, a number of smaller demonstrations have taken place.
Martial law was lifted in Tibet this May, but access remains restricted. Not only is Tibet a remote and isolated part of the world, as the House knows, but Chinese travel restrictions make it difficult for some travellers to reach the

region. I hope that the House will understand that it is therefore difficult to gauge precisely what is happening there at any one time.
My hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) were able to visit Tibet in October 1989, and a member of the British embassy in Peking was able to accompany them. But obtaining a clear picture of what is going on in all parts of Tibet is frequently complicated by information from varying, often partisan, sources that tend to exaggerate one or other of the positions and can be contradictory. I am sure that the House will understand that it is difficult to obtain an accurate picture of what is happening in all parts of Tibet because of the problems of access.
I say to the House, particularly to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point, the Father of the House, that the Government are concerned at the reported cases of human rights abuses in Tibet. Tibetan sources claim that about 1,000 people were detained after each of the October 1987 and March 1988 incidents. The Chinese admit that 278 people were arrested after the March 1989 riot. We are also aware of claims that demonstrators including nuns, have been tortured. We deplore human rights abuses wherever they occur—unhappily we live in a world in which they are all too common and are not just a feature of Tibet, or any one part of the world. We take seriously the understandable public concern in this country about human rights in Tibet, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point so eloquently described to the House.
However, despite what the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley implied, the Government have made their concern clear to the Chinese authorities both in public and in private. As hon. Members will appreciate, our major concern is to bring home to the Chinese the need for a greater respect for human rights, not only in Tibet —I emphasise this—but in China as a whole. We must recognise that, in China, as in some other parts of the world, unhappily the treatment of prisoners and demonstrators and what goes on in gaols do not conforrn to the standards that we would like to see, and do not show the respect for human rights that should exist. In some respects, what happens in Tibet is not necessarily that different from what happens in other parts of China. That is why we are seeking to bring home to the Chinese the need for a greater respect for human rights, not only in Tibet but throughout China.
Apart from the specific measures that we introduced in our dealings with China following the events of June 1989, we have taken a number of opportunities to make our views on the Chinese Government's human rights performance perfectly clear. The EC presidency, on behalf of the 12 members of the EC, made two statements to this year's session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, calling upon the Chinese authorities to guarantee full respect for human rights throughout China, including Tibet, in keeping with their international obligations. Its second statement called for the release of all political prisoners and respect for the rights of all Chinese citizens to free expression and peaceful assembly—particularly important in view of what my right hon. Friend said about what is happening, and has happened, in Tibet. The United Kingdom was a co-sponsor of a resolution on human rights in China, which unfortunately was narrowly defeated. The lifting of martial law in Tibet


on 1 May was a positive step by the Chinese. We have been glad to see other positive steps in China recently, in particular the release of many of those detained following the events of June last year.
Those are welcome developments, but I can assure the House that the Government will continue to take every opportunity to encourage the Chinese to take further steps to strengthen the protection of the human rights of all their citizens. I have a long list of the occasions when, individually or with our partners in the European Community, we have made that position clear. I can therefore fairly reject the criticism of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley that the Government have been silent on the issue; we certainly have not been.
I have set out in detail our reaction to what has been happening in Tibet, but much gives cause for grave concern. We should not see every action of the Chinese in Tibet in a purely negative light. Since 1980, China has shown a much more positive approach to the region. The Chinese have acknowledged that serious mistakes were made in Tibet, particularly during the cultural revolution, and have apologised to the Tibetan people for those mistakes.
They appear to have been making an effort to show some respect for Tibetan beliefs and way of life. The Chinese Government have commissioned the restoration of more than 500 monasteries and temples that were destroyed in the cultural revolution, the authorities gave substantial aid to Tibet and they are committed to making it self-sufficient.
The member of the British embassy in Peking who accompanied my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch, Harrow, East and Cornwall, South-East on their visit to Tibet in October 1989, when it was still under martial law, reported that, despite the heavy military presence, the economy of Lhasa and the surrounding area appeared to be thriving, and that the general atmosphere seemed relaxed.
I am aware that there are many different views of Chinese efforts to modernise and develop Tibet, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point referred, but it should be recognised that a genuine attempt has been made to improve conditions in the region.
Reference has been made to the status of Tibet. The Government have made clear many times their policy on the status of Tibet, but I take this opportunity to reiterate our position to the House. Successive British Governments have always regarded Tibet as autonomous, while recognising the special position of the Chinese authorities there. That continues to be our view, and that was recognised by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley. Tibet has never been internationally recognised as an independent country, and no country regards it as independent today. We do not believe that independence for Tibet is a realistic proposal. We do not regard the situations of Tibet and the Baltic states as comparable. The Government, for example, have never recognised the legality of the incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister explain why, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), the Minister for Overseas Development said:
Successive British Governments have regarded Tibet as autonomous, although recognising the special position of the Chinese authorities."—[Official Report, 19 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 658.]
Is that still the position of the Government? Does that equate with what the Minister has just said?

Mr. Sainsbury: It is exactly what I have just said. Successive Governments have always recognised Tibet as autonomous, while recognising the special position of the Chinese authorities there.
It would be of no service to Tibetans to encourage them to seek independence. The Chinese view is that, for many centuries, Tibet has been part of China. Their current position is that the Tibet autonomous region is an inalienable part of China, the rights, interests and religious beliefs of whose people are fully protected by China's constitution. We continue to believe that the most promising solution to the problem of Tibet, which has been highlighted by my right hon. Friend, is through dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Tibetan people, including His Holiness the Dalai Lama.
My right hon. Friend raised the subject of the conference on Tibet and in particular a recent conference held in London on Tibetan self-determination. The stated aim of the conference was to seek recognition of Tibet as a separate political entity. As I have said, the Government do not believe that Tibet's claim for independence is a realistic proposition and it would, therefore, have been inconsistent with our policy for Her Majesty's Government to be officially represented at that conference. For the same reason, we did not send a message of support.
My right hon. Friend referred to a message that Prime Minister Kaifu sent to a similar conference in Tokyo. My understanding is that it was a convention on Asian peace and that Mr. Kaifu's message made no reference to Tibet. On the other hand, the London conference was specifically billed as a consultation on self-determination for Tibet.
As the House will be aware, self-determination is an extremely difficult concept to define and there are many different interpretations of its meaning. I accept that, under the United Nations covenant, all people have the right to self-determination, but, as I have said, we do not believe that independence for Tibet is realistic; nor do we believe that United Nations' involvement would lead to a solution of the problem. Tibet has never been internationally recognised as an independant country. The most promising approach remains for consultation between the Chinese Government and the Tibetan people and we will continue to urge the Chinese Government to engage in such a dialogue and to work to resolve the problem. It offers the most promising avenue for an eventual settlement of this long and painful dispute.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley referred to the visit to Peking by the former Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude). My hon. Friend is at present in Hong Kong and later today will fly to Peking. This visit is part of the continuing dialogue that we have maintained with the Chinese in relation to Hong Kong and it in no way undermines the agreement between EC partners on the suspension of ministerial exchanges with


China. Partners have agreed that the United Kingdom and Portugal may continue to maintain senior level contacts with the Chinese because of the special considerations of Hong Kong and Macau.
Her Majesty's Government are as concerned as my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point about the situation between the Chinese and the Tibetans in Tibet. We do not by any means ignore that. We have consistently advocated the need for dialogue between the parties concerned. It is clearly deplorable if events and behaviour such as that described by my right hon. Friend are going on in the region. There is no excuse for human rights violations of that nature. The Government have repeatedly made our views known on this subject, both internationally at the United Nations and bilaterally with the Chinese Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North will be in Peking shortly and will reiterate our concern and that of the general public about human rights not only in Tibet but throughout China.
At the same time, it would be wrong to deny that the Chinese have tried hard in recent years to put right many of the wrongs that they had committed since 1951, and particularly since 1959. It is ironic that these improved policies and greater relaxations have resulted in the demonstrations for even greater concessions which have occured since 1987. Those demonstrations led to the backlash and the imposition of martial law. Violence has bred violence in a classic pattern with which, unhappily, we are all familiar.
I must reiterate that, while we advocate dialogue and improved relations between Chinese and Tibetans and would like the Tibetans to play a greater role in Tibet, we do not believe that independence is a realistic option. We do not think that people in this country who promote that idea are doing the Tibetans a service. Let us instead see greater support here for that dialogue between Tibetans and Chinese which His Holiness the Dalai Lama has been trying to promote.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, none of which comes as any surprise to me—I think that he put up as good a defence of the attitude of successive British Governments as might have been expected.
I do not think that the question of outright independence is really the point at issue. There are many instances around the world of major powers having a particular interest and involvement in weaker states on their borders. In a civilised society, that implies responsibility for what is done in the weaker state, but I do not concede for a moment the argument that there is a case for independence. I have given historic examples showing that the British Government have taken different views at different times, and I hope that they will take a different view at some future time, even if they are not prepared to do so now. Whatever view we have taken of other peoples in the past, we live today in a world that is changing and contracting very fast.
I remember the words of an astronaut—I cannot recall whether the spacecraft was Soviet or American—who, on returning to earth, was asked what his impressions had been. He said, "On the first day, we were all excitedly pointing out our countries to one another. On the second and third days, we were pointing out our continents. After

that, we were looking at a steadily diminishing earth. Two words came into my mind: commonality and interdependence."
It is extraordinary how, in the past year or so, our thoughts have turned not only to what has been happening high up in the atmosphere, or in outer space, but also to what is happening here on earth where we are destroying our environment as fast as we can. Of course we are all aware of this and steps are now being taken, but we all have a responsibility for mankind as a whole. If we do not recognise that now, we shall be forced to recognise it within the next decade. It is as plain as a pikestaff to anyone who looks at the world as it is today.
Let us consider the sudden and extraordinary happenings in Europe. Who would ever have dreamed it possible that Mr. Gorbachev would be telling Herr Honecker, "You will not use violence against demonstrators and you cannot count on Soviet troops to help you", and then tell the west? We remember what happened in Hungary in 1956, and in Czechoslovakia in 1968. Then, suddenly, we have a peaceful revolution. Things are changing very fast. We now live in one world, and we shall survive only in one world.
I am simply saying that people can argue however they like about whether Tibet has a right to total independence, or whether China has suzerainty, but those terms mean nothing if the stronger power does not accept the responsibility to behave decently towards the weaker. The Tibetans, of all people on God's earth, are opposed to violence. Their Buddhist faith leads them to think in terms of harmony with nature and they abhor violence. The Dalai Lama has repeatedly rejected violence. That was the essence of his remarkable speech accepting the Nobel peace prize, which I heard. He has not been received in this country. Why not? He is one of the great men of the world—he stands for ideals that a civilised nation should be proud to advance.
It is not sufficient to say that we take a constitutional stand, and that Tibet is China's responsibility. That is simply not good enough. One has to condemn actions such as those taking place in China and take such action as we can against those who have embarked upon a genocidal policy.
I am glad to hear that there have been some changes and even admissions that mistakes have been made, although there is not much evidence that Chinese rule in Tibet has slackened or weakened or that more consideration is being shown to the Tibetans. All the evidence reaching the west is to the contrary. The civilised world is gradually coming to realise that such behaviour is intolerable and those who perpetrate it must face the music. Sanctions could be used.
We must remember that the first victims of the aggressive Chinese policy are the Chinese themselves. One thinks of the poor students mown down in Tiananmen square—and elsewhere too in China, although we do not hear much about that. My heart goes out to the Chinese people. They are a great people, worthy of better government than they have had for centuries. We can see the success that they make of their lives outside China. Diligence, hard work, devotion and love of family characterise Chinese communities all over the world outside China.
We must remember China's desire for Taiwan to return to the land of the ancestors. A natural anxiety has been removed, for the time being, about its powerful Soviet


neighbour on one side and its powerful Japanese neighbour on the other, but the Chinese still need the good will of the world just as we need the good will of China. It is not much to ask that they should behave themselves in Tibet.
It is unfair that my hon. Friend the Minister has been called upon to answer this debate as this is not his subject, but he has brought to it his customary courtesy and I appreciate that. Although there are not many hon. Members present in the House, I hope that my hon. Friend will take away a real feeling that Parliament is concerned. This issue concerns not only this Parliament, but leading politicians throughout the world.
The Tibetan exiles in India have shown that they flourish in a free country. I have had the privilege of meeting many of them. They are successful because they are a virtuous and hard-working people and they have faith. If they have that in exile, one can bet one's boots that they would have it in their own country.
It is not sufficient to stand on the constitutional argument that it is really China's affair because it is not. From now on, the whole world is involved in what happens to people everywhere. That is my faith and I adhere to it. We shall return to this subject time and again until the west concerns itself with one of the most monstrous crimes to be committed against a whole people since the end of the second world war. Our memories of that should make us realise what is at stake.

Mr. Sainsbury: My right hon. Friend has made a powerful case. His words are on the record and I can assure him that they will be studied carefully.
My right hon. Friend referred to the remarkable events that are taking place in eastern Europe and the changes that have occurred in that area. Those changes have occurred as a result of dialogue and discussions between those involved. I believe that that is the way forward for Tibet.
My right hon. Friend also referred to the reception of the Dalai Lama. The Government have always recognised the Dalai Lama as a distinguished spiritual leader who commands great respect internationally for his advocacy of a peaceful solution to the problems of Tibet. The award of the Nobel peace prize to him last year reflects the recognition of his dedication to the cause of peace. The Dalai Lama is always welcome to visit this country and has already done so on several occasions.
As I said earlier, I believe that the best way forward to achieve a better respect for human rights, not just in Tibet, but throughout China, is through dialogue between the Chinese and the Tibetans and by the Chinese adhering more closely to the United Nations convention on human rights. That is something that we should like to see in many other parts of the world, too.

India and Kashmir

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: I, too, offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) on his appointment as Government Deputy Chief Whip. I wish him well and I know that he will do well in his job.
I wish today to highlight some of the problems which confront Kashmir in its struggle to attain the right to self-government. I do so in the sincere hope that, by highlighting the situation and drawing attention to the plight of the Kashmiri people, I shall persuade the Government to bring additional pressure to bear on those currently abusing the Kashmiris.
The problems facing Kashmir are not new. They stretch back to the 19th century, and in that troubled history Britain has not been blameless, having once sold the state to the autocratic maharajahs whose descendant in 1947 sought help from India when the people he governed began to ask for the right to rule themselves. As a result, India sent troops into Kashmir in October 1947 and they have remained there ever since.
At that time, Lord Mountbatten expressed the wish that as soon as law and order was restored the Kashmiris should have the right to self-determination. That sentiment was echoed by Mahatma Gandhi and by Mr. Nehru. By 1951, Mr. Nehru was still arguing that Kashmir should decide its own fate. He said:
People seem to forget that Kashmir is not a commodity for sale or to be bartered. It has an individual existence and its people must be the final arbiters of their future.
By that time the Kashmiri question had already been taken to the United Nations. Three resolutions were passed acknowledging Kashmir's right to self-determination and in 1949 the promise was given that Kashmir's future would be decided
through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite.
Unfortunately, the right of self-determination was interpreted as meaning the right to decide whether to join India or Pakistan rather than the right to opt for a third alternative, that of self-government.
Eventually a cease-fire was put into effect and Kashmir was divided, two thirds going to India and one third to Pakistan, but that did not resolve the Kashmiri problem. To quote Mr. Nehru again, this time as late as 1952, in a quote which highlighted the absence of that peaceful settlement that taking the matter to the United Nations was supposed to have achieved, he said:
We have taken the issue to the United Nations and given our word for a peaceful solution. As a great nation we cannot go back on it. We have left the final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision.
However, India has never sought a decision from the people of Kashmir. Instead, she immediately set about regarding Kashmir as just another Indian state—and herein lies the root of the trouble that Kashmiris are experiencing today.
The people of Kashmir know that they have a right to national self-determination, they know that the United Nations upholds that right, yet whenever they have tried to express a desire to exercise that right they have been brutally and ferociously denied it by the Indian


Government. India signed the universal declaration of human rights in 1949. Among other things, under article 3, that declaration guarantees that
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.
Article 5 states:
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 9 states:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 19 states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
In March 1990, a team of Indian Hindus visited Kashmir on a fact-finding mission which led them to collect evidence from a wide variety of sources, including eye witnesses, victims and Government officials. They reported back on indiscriminate killings, arbitrary arrests, unlawful searches, unprovoked attacks on peaceful demonstrators and the fact that a curfew was imposed for months at a time, leading to the complete destruction of any semblance of ordinary life. The conclusion of the report given by the team, representing the committee for initiative on Kashmir, said that the
Government's plan to check terrorism in Kashmir has in practice turned out to be an exercise directed against the vast masses of Kashmiri people who are being denied the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian constitution and those enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights to which the Indian Government is a signatory.
To date that report is the only one that has been published on human rights in Kashmir. However, there is more than ample evidence to suggest that human rights have been violated as the Kashmiris struggle for the right to determine their own future. If I could quote but a few instances, I am sure that the House would be horrified to discover the scale on which the universal declaration of human rights has been violated in Kashmir. Paramilitary troops fired into a crowd of peaceful demonstrators who were marching in protest against illegal searches and arrests. Official sources said that, after the incident, at least 60 people were dead. We know, and we have evidence to prove it, that the figure was nearer 200 dead. That incident violated articles 3, 5, 9 and 19 of the declaration.
When others took to the streets the next day to protest at the merciless killings, they too were fired upon, and unofficial sources claim that at least a further 100 people were found dead a breach of articles 3, 5 and 19. When local doctors sent four ambulances to collect the injured in Srinagar, where the incidents had taken place, paramilitary troops beat up the drivers so that they came back as patients. The troops inflicted that cruelty after denying the ambulance men the right to take the injured to hospital—an abuse of articles 3 and 5 of the declaration.
There have been reports of daily raids on property, assaults on peaceful demonstrators, indiscriminate arrests and reports that the security forces harass innocent citizens—an abuse of articles 3, 5, 9 and 19 of the declaration.
The common people appear to come off worst in this situation. There are reports of pregnant women and very ill people being turned away by the security forces who man the roads to the hospitals, but the height of cruelty was surely the reported incident in which paramilitary

forces stopped a woman trying to take her sick child to hospital. They were reported as shouting at her, "Let the child die—there will be one less militant."
Those incidents are reminiscent of that dark period in our own history when ordinary men and women were treated as though they were of no consequence. The journalist, William Dalrymple, writing in The Spectator in June 1990, described the scene after troops had fired into a funeral procession in Srinagar. He said:
The site of the massacre was still red with bloodstains, while all around were scattered pathetic piles of sandals, broken spectacles and women's headscarves, still lying where their owners fell.
That description bears an eerie resemblance to that of another massacre, as described by the radical writer, Bamford. He reported:
All over the field were strewn caps, bonnets, hats, shawls and shoes, and other parts of male and female dress, lying where they had fallen … trampled, torn and bloody.
The difference between the two descriptions lies in the fact that Bamford was writing of Britain in 1819, following the massacre at Peterloo in which Government troops fired on innocent men, women and children, killing 11 and injuring several hundred. Even in those dark days, before ordinary men and women had a share in political power and, consequently, a say in their destinies, that incident was regarded as a violation of basic human rights. It went down in history as a sign that ordinary people needed a say in the government of their country if they were to have a life worth living—free from the oppression of a ruling class.
William Dalrymple was describing an almost identical scene in the modern, latter-day 20th century when the lessons of history and of man's inhumanity to man are supposed to have been learnt. He has described conditions in a country that has an overall area of 85,000 square miles and a population of about 10 million. That area is currently being denied the fundamental right of national self-determination. That is as blatant an injustice in the ever-shrinking world of the 20th century as the denial of the right of free political expression in St. Peter's field in Manchester in the early 19th century.
The Indian Government, despite all the reported evidence of cruelty and violation of basic human rights, and despite the overwhelming desire of the people of Kashmir to determine the course of their own destiny, seem to turn a blind eye to the plight of the Kashmiri people. They appear to have increased their lack of sympathy for that people's plight. That is demonstrated by the fact that India has imposed direct military rule on much of the state and set up a special court to deal with what the Indian Government describe as terrorists.
At the same time, however, popular movements in Kashmir are growing in number, cohesion and confidence. A climate of extreme tension is developing daily, but to what purpose and effect? Because of that heightened tension, defence spending in the area has increased, which must have an adverse effect on the local people. Many of them are living in dire poverty and could well benefit from that money being spent on programmes of development and social welfare that would alleviate the situation in which far too many are still dying as a result of hunger and malnutrition.
I am sure that the people of the western countries which give aid to India and Pakistan would far rather see that money spent on measures which would directly improve


the lives of the people rather than run the risk of its being channelled into coping with defence measures than the build-up of tension in relation to Kashmir has created.
The Kashmiri question lies at the root of the hostility between India and Pakistan. We would like that aggression to end so that the ordinary citizens of both countries might reap the benefits of stability. To date, India and Pakistan have fought two wars over Kashmir. A third must be avoided at all costs, but that will not happen so long as India continues to adopt an imperialistic stand towards Kashmir. That approach is completely out of touch with modern thinking and does no credit to a country which claims to value the freedoms for which the post-war western world has fought.
It appears that some 500 people have died in the past six months as a result of their willingness to campaign for the right to self-determination. Thousands have been injured, arrested and tortured, and women have been raped by the law enforcement agents. Foreign journalists have been banned from the state and the local press is heavily censored. It is clear that the time has come to act, and to act fast.
I believe that it is the duty of every country which professes to honour the international agreements that it signs or witnesses to stand up and be counted when those agreements are violated, especially on the scale witnessed in present-day Kashmir. I believe that it is the duty of the British Government to uphold the Kashmiris' right to national self-determination and to censure any Government who blatantly deny that right.
I ask the Government to champion the cause of the innocent victims of latter-day imperialism in Kashmir by exerting pressure on the Government of India who are denying the Kashmiris the fundamental human right to decide their own future. I call upon the Government to act to enable the current misery experienced by the Kashmiris to be ended by embarrassing their oppressors at every opportunity until justice for Kashmir is achieved.
It is with regret, therefore, that I refer to the contents of a letter sent recently by the Foreign Secretary to one of my own constituents, himself a Kashmiri. The letter refers to the fact that no mention of granting the Kashmiris the right to self-government in an independent state has ever been made officially. It is with concern that I note that the right hon. Gentleman states:
Tensions appear now to have eased a little".
As I have explained, tensions are rife and feelings about the right of national determination—meaning the right to self-government—are running high.
In those circumstances, we must support the people of Kashmir in their struggle to attain self-government and we must never become complacent, thinking that we can salve our consciences by saying that we have done our best and that the ultimate decision must rest with India and Pakistan. The ultimate decision must rest with the Kashmiri people, and it is our duty to help them to help themselves in a Government elected and run by the Kashmiris legislating in the interests of an independent Kashmiri state. I ask the British Government to do more to bring about the recognition of that fundamental right of the Kashmiri nation.

Mr. Gary Waller: In contemplating the tragic situation in Kashmir, we must ask ourselves at the outset what role Britain can play in an issue that concerns two independent states with which we enjoy friendly relations as fellow members of the Commonwealth. Perhaps it is easier to say what role Britain cannot play. I do not believe that we can act as mediators. India utterly rejects the term "mediation" in relation to this matter, which is considered a wholly internal one; and Pakistan, for its part, believes that Kashmiris in that territory occupied by India should be allowed to choose their own future. Mediation is not a term that is necessarily helpful or appropriate from either point of view.
Nevertheless, Britain is unique in enjoying a special position because of the role that we have played in the history of the sub-continent. The fact is that the time of independence failed to secure a solution for Kashmir that could be workable in the long term. The last maharajah, Hari Singh, succumbed to pressure from Nehru and Mountbatten, opting for accession to India. That led only to a succession of conflicts and wars between India and Pakistan which solved nothing but provided an excuse for the plebiscite agreed by India at partition to be indefinitely deferred. Not for nothing did President Ghulam Ishaq Khan of Pakistan refer recently to
the unfinished agenda of partition.
The state of affairs in Jammu and Kashmir—undoubtedly one of the loveliest parts of the world—can only be described as dire. Those who have visited Jammu and Kashmir report that the country is living under a kind of siege, with a rigorously imposed curfew and with evidence of unacceptable and uncontrolled violence on the part of the Indian security forces. As many as 1,000 people have died this year in an orgy of murder, torture and oppression.
This has resulted in an upsurge of nationalist outrage which must be counterproductive to India's liberal and democratic reputation but which also is not welcome to Pakistan, because the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front rejects rule not only by India but by any power other than the Kashmiris themselves. The creation of a separate Kashmir would encourage similar movements in Baluchistan and Sind in Pakistan, just as it would in the Indian Punjab.
The use of force, as in so many theatres throughout the world, is squeezing the moderates and benefiting the radicals and revolutionaries, whose support has greatly increased among the people. As an Indian human rights team reported,
the failure of the government to distinguish between masses of unarmed demonstrators on the one hand and groups of armed militants on the other has been responsible to a large extent for pushing the general public to the anti-Indian position that the militants adopt. It is the government which, ironically, has provided a handful of secessionist militants with a mass base.
India must understand that if it wants to enjoy the world's respect it must withdraw the licence to kill that its troops and paramilitary forces seem to be have been given. It must listen to those of its own people who have condemned the excesses, pointing out that they have fuelled the moves towards separation. Prime Minister V. P. Singh seemed to have learnt that lesson when he said last Friday:
We should not club the whole people together with those forces


—referring to the secessionists.
India must also accept that the forces that perpetuate division cannot last indefinitely. Eventually it will have to talk about self-determination in one form or another, because history teaches that, however many people may die, one can never kill the idea of nationhood. One day all the people of Kashmir will determine their own future. Meanwhile, putting an end to brutality must be the priority, not only for the sake of the people who are suffering but because it is shortsighted and mistaken to believe that driving the cork into the bottle will do anything but force the mixture inside it to boil up into an ever-more explosive brew.
It is not in the interests of India or Pakistan that Kashmir should remain the focus of repeated crises between the two countries, even though it may occasionally be a temptation for a politically beleaguered Government to build support on the strength of the need to unite against external adversaries. Neither economy is so strong that it can afford to make large commitments to a build-up of arms, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) said. Such continuing strains would also do untold damage to the Commonwealth if they persisted. That is why it must be in the interests of the Commonwealth, too, that Britain should do all in its power to show that the denial of human rights and the use of force, especially against civilians, are pointless folly.

Mr. Max Madden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) on introducing this important debate on Kashmir. Even at this late hour it is good that the House can debate what is happening there. I had the opportunity of visiting Azad Kashmir and Kashmir in the first week of July, and I want to report what I saw, what I was told and what I believe are gross human rights violations being perpetrated by the Indian security forces in Kashmir. It is appropriate that the debate should follow one on Tibet; we heard of gross violations of human rights there, too, and the pattern seems to be all too familiar in both countries.
While in Kashmir I received a copy of a local newspaper which reported, with names and photographs, the people who have been murdered in recent months in Kashmir. They include men, women and children. There is a report of a baby who was murdered while taking milk from his mother and one about the body of Mohammed Umar Farooq, the Muslim leader of Kashmir, who was murdered earlier this year. There are pages of photographs of the type that appear all too regularly in Kashmir. There are photographs of a group of murdered men, and it is clear that they had been severely tortured before they died. It is claimed that Indian security forces often attempt to conceal the identity of a body by gouging out the eyes and brutally disfiguring the face. However, bodies are identified. There is a picture of a murdered child who looks about three or four years old.
Some brave women in Kashmir regularly lead protest demonstrations and there are photographs of one such demonstration. The women are protesting about Indian security forces ransacking their homes and destroying or stealing valuable property. There are two photographs of women sitting in their homes surrounded by broken and damaged property.
Those newspapers report some of what is happening in Kashmir. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok said, the newspapers are frequently closed down and their telephone and telex lines are often cut. Local people are urged by Indian security forces not to buy or read them. I also visited one of 14 refugee camps in Azad Kashmir, where 300 families were living in tents and had no drinking water. People have to walk two to three miles from the camp to Muzaffarabad to get supplies. At dusk I was introduced to a man who showed us graphically how Indian security forces had chopped off his right foot. We were told of people who had had their feet, arms or hands chopped off.
I was shown a mother and a baby boy of about one year old, both of whom had serious burn marks across the stomach. I was told that they had suffered the burns under interrogation by Indian security forces. A boy of about 15 showed me marks on his face and neck which were caused, he said, by electrodes placed there by Indian security forces. He also showed me marks on his back which he said had been caused by these security forces running red-hot irons across his back. I understand that that is a familiar torture carried out by Indian security forces on Kashmiris in Kashmir.
I met a teacher who told me that he had fled Kashmir after a colleague who was walking with him was arrested by Indian security forces. He watched while his colleague was assaulted and killed by those forces and then thrown in the river. That experience so terrified him that next day he and his family of nine fled Kashmir and joined the thousands of refugees in Azad Kashmir.
The Kashmiris walk across mountains just like the Tibetans walk across mountains to flee Tibet. Many are ill, many are injured, many die on the way and many die soon after they arrive in Azad Kashmir. Others survive in poor conditions. I urge the Governments of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir and the people of Britain to do as much as they can to relieve the suffering and hardship of the refugees who have fled Kashmir and live in poor conditions in Azad Kashmir.
On the day that I visited a refugee camp I was told that another dead body had been taken from the river that runs along the side of the camp. That was the 43rd dead body to be taken from the river since January this year.
All that I have mentioned constitutes to my mind, and to that of any fair-minded person, a worrying pattern of brutal repression that is being perpetrated by Indian security forces in Kashmir. It is systematic, it is serious and it represents a pattern of serious human rights violations which is a serious indictment of the world's largest democracy—which India claims to be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pollok referred to curfew. When I was in Kashmir, the curfew was supposed to run from 7 pm until 8 am. In fact it ran from 7 pm on Friday right until Saturday afternoon, when I left Kashmir. In April, there were three weeks of permanent curfew in Kashmir when the dead were not allowed to be buried, women were not allowed to leave their homes to have babies, the sick were not allowed to obtain treatment and no one was allowed out to buy food or get water. In those intolerable circumstances, is it any wonder that there is mounting opposition to the occupation of Kashmir by India and mounting support for those who are engaged in armed struggle?
I have referred to the systematic house searches that take place constantly. Indeed, the day that I spent in


Kashmir house searches were under way on an enormous scale. There is constant harassment and intimidation, particularly of young men, which again causes considerable resentment and hostility among all civilians in Kashmir.
Martial law was introduced on the day that I arrived in Kashmir. It gives authority to constables and junior police officers to shoot on sight. In effect, it legitimises the right to shoot to kill.
We do not know how many political prisoners have been taken into detention in Kashmir in the past two years or so. The best estimates are between 10,000 and 15,000. Many of them have been moved from Kashmir to the hottest northern states of India. There are worrying reports about the conditions in which the prisoners are detained and their treatment.
As the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), the Father of the House, asked the Minister earlier to recognise that what was happening in Tibet was a struggle for self-determination, I ask the Minister to accept and understand that what is happening in Kashmir is a genuine struggle for self-determination. It is comparable to other struggles for self-determination of the past and present.
The men, women and young people of Kashmir want an opportunity to decide their futures and to determine the destiny of Kashmir. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok said, more than 40 years ago, the people of Kashmir were promised a plebiscite to decide their future. Traditionally, the choice has always been between remaining part of India and becoming part of Pakistan. There should now be a third option of independence, for which the people of Kashmir can also vote in deciding their future.
During my brief visit to Kashmir, I met a very impressive young man of 16, Mohammed Umar Farooq, who is the son of the murdered Muslim leader that I mentioned earlier. Incidentally, at Mohammed Farooq's funeral, 50 mourners were murdered and many hundreds were seriously injured when they were attacked by Indian security forces.
Mohammed Umar Farooq told me in the clearest possible terms that the people of Kashmir should be directly represented in any dialogue or meeting between India and Pakistan on the country's future. He assured me that the events in Kashmir reflected a struggle for self-determination and the right of the people of Kashmir to decide their own future. I hope that Mohammed Umar Farooq, the spiritual leader of Kashmiri Muslims in Kashmir, will take up my suggestion that he should visit Britain, America, Canada and Europe to explain himself that there is in Kashmir a popular uprising, supported by the majority of its people, in favour of self-determination. Mohammed Umar Farooq told me that he could not leave his people at this time of great hardship, but I hope nevertheless that he will reconsider. I believe that that young man would make the most impressive ambassador for the people of Kashmir at this difficult time, and could persuade the international community that what is happening in Kashmir is nothing less than a struggle for self-determination.
I hope that the House, Britain, and the international community will understand that the events in Kashmir do

not reflect a fundamentalist conspiracy to establish an Islamic state. I had several meetings with Amanullah Khan, chief spokesperson for the Jammu and Kashmir provisional Government in exile. He told me that those who support him and his provisional Government want a secular Kashmir. That provisional Government comprises Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs—and at the time that I met Mr. Khan, he was about to appoint to it a buddhist.
The House, the British public and the international community must also understand that this is not an internal matter for India alone. What is happening in Kashmir is of concern to the whole world, as is what is happening in Tibet—as we have been told tonight by the Father of the House.
What is happening in Tibet is comparable with what is happening in Kashmir. Events in the west bank, eastern Europe, South Africa and central and south America are comparable to events in Kashmir. They are genuine struggles for self-determination by courageous men and women who want nothing less than the opportunity to decide their own affairs—the right of so many other people in independent countries.
I hope that the Minister will be able to go much further than he did when he replied to a debate that I initiated in March this year, which was concerned with events in the Punjab and Kashmir. The pattern of human rights violations in both places is identical. In both cases the Indian security forces are implementing state terrorism. Yes, it is in response to individual terrorism, but we know that whenever state terrorism is implemented in response to individual terrorism there is an escalation of violence, and there is no end to the escalation unless and until political action is taken to resolve matters.
In Kashmir and in the Punjab the Indian Government think that they can resolve such issues by military means. In my view, that is impossible because in both Kashmir and the Punjab, those engaged in armed struggle have the mass, popular support of the people, who have been totally alienated by the brutal repression used by the Indian security forces against their aspirations.
I hope that the Minister will be able to say tonight that the Indian Government have confirmed the invitation to Amnesty International so that it can visit Kashmir and the Punjab thoroughly and independently to investigate the allegations of human rights violations in both states.
When I was in India, I was shocked to hear Rajiv Gandhi make a speech to his party's youth conference saying that, in his view, Amnesty International was a front organisation for the Central Intelligence Agency, which is prejudiced against India and in favour of Pakistan. He went further and urged his young party supporters to protest outside the Prime Minister's office against the invitation, and he said that if Amnesty International was allowed to visit India, the airport at Delhi should be occupied and he would be proud to join his party supporters in the sit-in to stop the organisation entering India or being able to investigate human rights violations in Kashmir or the Punjab. That is an amazing admission for a former Prime Minister of the world's largest democracy to make in 1990.
It is untenable for the Minister to repeat what he said in the debate in March—that the British Government were neutral in relation to Kashmir. In the face of a mountain of allegations about human rights violations in Kashmir, we cannot remain neutral. The Minister cannot dispute the scale of the human rights violations, in view of the


authenticated reports of the numbers of people who have been murdered, seriously injured, tortured, detained, raped, harassed and intimidated daily by Indian security forces whose numbers we do not know—the minimum estimate is 150,000 and some estimates put it as high as 400,000 or 500,000 of every variety in Kashmir.
Therefore, I urge the Minister and Her Majesty's Government to take action and put pressure on the Indian Government to allow the people of Kashmir to hold a referendum and decide their own future and the destiny of their country. The time has come, not for gestures but for the British Government to make clear their condemnation of the human rights violations in Kashmir.
I urge the British Government to ban the export of military equipment to India. That equipment could be used for the repression of the people in Kashmir and the Punjab. I call on the British Government to withdraw Indian military and police personnel who are undertaking training in the United Kingdom and to ban them from undergoing future training in this country. The British Government should also withhold aid to India. Earlier this year we were told by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) that not a penny of British aid to India is spent in either Kashmir or the Punjab. Therefore, it would be perfectly proper for the British Government to withhold aid from India.
I urge the British Government to allow children and students from Kashmir who are in the United Kingdom to attend United Kingdom schools and colleges. At least 30 children from Kashmir are seeking Home Office permission to remain here and undertake the education that they are denied in Kashmir. Nearly all schools, colleges, banks and other public buildings in Kashmir are closed. Local administration is non-existent. There is, therefore, an overwhelming need for the British Government to make a modest contribution to the future of Kashmir by ensuring that children and students from Kashmir are allowed to secure an education here.
As there is a great shortage of medical supplies in Kashmir, I also urge the Kashmiri community here to do everything that it can to raise money to buy medical supplies. May I ask the British Government to make a request to the Indian Government that they should allow those supplies to enter Kashmir and that they should instruct Air India to carry them. In recent months there have been reports that Air India has refused to carry medical supplies.
It is also important that the international media, including the British media, should be able to report what is happening in Kashmir. It is vital that British Members of Parliament and politicians from the Parliaments of other countries should visit Kashmir. The Indian high commissioner in London has assured me and my colleagues on a number of occasions that India has nothing to hide or conceal in Kashmir. However, when I talk to journalists from the newspaper and broadcasting media they tell me that visas are not made available to them by the Indian high commission and that they are unable to visit Kashmir. I have been told by hon. Members that applications for visas to visit Kashmir have not been granted, even though their applications were made some time ago.
I join in congratulating the Minister on his promotion. I wish him well in his new post. He would do the House a valuable service, and the people of Kashmir an invaluable service, if he could intimate that the British Government

now accept that what is happening in Kashmir is a genuine struggle for self-determination and that independence should be an option that is available to the people of Kashmir, when the opportunity arises for them to decide their own future. I hope that the Minister will state that Britain will not stand on the sidelines and maintain its neutrality in the face of the serious allegations that have been made by hon. Members from both sides of the House over several months about the extent of human rights violations in Kashmir and the extent of brutality perpetrated by Indian security forces on the people of Kashmir.
I hope that the Minister will say tonight that he believes that the people of Kashmir should be given that opportunity and that the Governments of India and Pakistan must be persuaded that the only way to resolve this problem is by a political solution. The only valid political solution that holds any promise of resolving such an enormous crime against humanity is the holding of a plebiscite or referendum to enable the people of Kashmir to decide to remain part of India, become part of Pakistan or become independent. The latter option is winning enormous popular support.
Kashmir is a beautiful country—the most beautiful that I have ever visited. It is the Switzerland of Asia. It has mineral resources, a population of 10 million people and economic viability. Above all, I believe that the people of Kashmir are entitled to the nationhood that they hold dear. It is also important to have a buffer, an independent state between India and Pakistan, which could add greatly to the stability and long-term peace of that important region.
I hope that the Minister's reply tonight will give some hope to the people of Kashmir that, in the near future, they will have the right for which they are now paying dearly and which so many other people round the world have—the right to decide freely and fairly their future, and that of their lovely country.

Mr. Foulkes: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) for his diligence in pursuing this issue at Prime Minister's Question Time and on other occasions, and on his good fortune in coming relatively high in today's order. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) on showing their commitment to the issue by staying until this ungodly hour to participate in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West has frequently raised the subject in various ways.
I can confirm that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have received many representations about this issue, as have Back Benchers. They have heard from organisations directly involved with one or other of the sides of the issue, from organisations concerned about human rights violations and, above all, from constituents, from whom a number of representations have been received.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok said, it: is right that the British Parliament should consider that it has a special responsibility in this as in many other problem areas around the world which are relics of our colonial past. As he rightly said, it was at the time of Indian


independence in 1947 that the seeds of this long and unhappy conflict were sown. No doubt that is something about which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues are not unaware.
Now, with pressure from the three elements—those seeking continuation within India, those pressing for a move to Pakistan and the groups favouring independence—it is probably not surprising, but nonetheless regrettable, that the intensity of the conflict, the killings and the injuries have recently increased.
It is important to point out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West rightly said, that Kashmir is a beautiful state whose economy depends to a great extent on tourism and which has been much harmed by the continuation of the dispute—a not unimportant matter when talking about the prosperity of its people.
On behalf of the Opposition, I report, without agreement or disagreement, that we have been made fully aware that the Indian Government want a political solution agreed bilaterally between India and Pakistan. They tell us that they seek to persuade Kashmiris that as the only Muslim majority state in India their interests can be accommodated within a pluralist, federal India. They tell us that they have understandable fears that an independent Kashmir might increase secessionist calls from other states and the possibility of further terrorism elsewhere on their doorstep.
Equally, the Government of Pakistan have emphasised to us in several meetings their concern that a plebiscite has not been held, as envisaged, to give the people of Kashmir a choice of remaining part of India or joining Pakistan. Neither India nor Pakistan favours the option of independence being put to the people of Kashmir, yet we all know that that is the central aim of the Jammu and Kashmir liberation front. Although such an option was not envisaged in the Simla agreement or the United Nations resolution, given the proliferation of similar demands elsewhere it is entirely understandable that many hon. Members, some of whom have spoken today, have sympathy with those aspirations.
This important issue was the subject of careful consideration and, indeed, a resolution at the recent meeting of the Socialist International in Cairo, in which the British Labour party participated and fully supported the resolution. [Interruption.] I see that the Minister is suffering from the vagaries of the hour, so I shall not take too long. The resolution on Kashmir at the Socialist International said:
In Kashmir, the tension between India and Pakistan is increasing and the risk of war between the two countries is growing.
The Socialist International is concerned at the growing tension between India and Pakistan and calls on both countries to avoid any further escalation of tension and to redeploy their armed forces to peace-time locations.
The Socialist International urges the governments of India and Pakistan to open a dialogue to achieve a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the applicable United Nations Resolutions and the spirit of the Simla Agreement.
The Socialist International requests the governments of India and Pakistan to allow it to play a conciliatory role to promote this dialogue.
As we all know, since the meeting in Cairo the Foreign Ministers of both countries met in Islamabad last week. Although the talks were deadlocked, they have agreed to

reconvene on 9 August, and we urge continuing dialogue until some agreement is reached. It would be tragic for all concerned if India and Pakistan were to go to war for a third time over Kashmir. As both countries are members of the Commonwealth, we urge examination of all possible ways of mobilising the Commonwealth as an organisation to help to find a way forward. The hon. Member for Keighley emphasised that point.
Equally, this is one of regrettably far too many disputes around the world which cries out for a greater United Nations role in conflict resolution. There are people within the United Nations such as Under-Secretary-General Marrack Goulding, a former distinguished diplomat of this country, who believe that the United Nations could and should play a more active part in the resolution of disputes. That is also the view of an increasing number of politicians in an ever growing number of countries around the world. In order to do so, the United Nations would need a permanent peacekeeping force, a team of skilled negotiators working for the Secretary-General and integration with the mechanisms of the world court to make agreements legally binding.
There is, therefore, an urgent need for the United Nations to do such a job, and we should be taking action before many more thousands die in the growing number of escalating disputes around the world, of which, tragically, Kashmir is one of the most serious.
One of the many encouraging signs from the increased global co-operation between the two super-powers is the way they are using their influence to move towards the resolution of regional conflict. We hope that that will be a positive influence in the dispute in Kashmir. Regrettably, however, Amnesty International reports that many serious human rights abuses have been committed by Indian security forces. The graphic accounts of those abuses given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West moved all hon. Members who were present. As he conceded, the militant organisations campaigning to join neighbouring Pakistan or to become an independent state have also been reported to Amnesty International for human rights violations. Those human rights abuses, of whatever kind, of whatever intensity and from whatever source, must be condemned and must stop.
As in so many of these disputes, the prerequisites of a solution are an end to human rights abuses, a ceasefire, an agreement to end supplies of arms to all sides and an agreement to seek a solution through peaceful discussion with any outside help which can be mutually agreed. In saying that, we do not underestimate the sincerity or the strength of feeling on all sides and the difficulty of resolving the conflicting interests in Kashmir. Here, as elsewhere—we cannot completely ignore other parallels and precedents—a peaceful solution must be the only way forward for democracies. In India and Pakistan, we now have two of the world's largest democracies both in the Commonwealth—which we wish to see survive and develop for a long time, peacefully, side by side. A negotiated agreement on Kashmir is, in the Opposition's view, an essential element of that aim.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): By leave of the House, I should like to speak again.
I join those who congratulated the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) on bringing this subject


before the House again, even if this is not the easiest of hours. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on being present at a time when some people think that it is better to start the day rather than continuing what turned out to be a rather long one. I congratulate them on contributing to another interesting debate on a difficult subject.
It is interesting that the official title of the subject is
Relations between Her Majesty's Government and India, with particular reference to Kashmir".
General relationships have not been mentioned much in this debate, but it is worth recording that our relationships with the Government of India are excellent. We have strong links and there are countless points of contact between Britain and India on many levels—historical, political, academic, cultural, commercial, sporting and, of course, personal. The state visit in April of the President of India to Britain was an important event of great value in celebrating the closeness and warmth of our links with India.
We have a substantial relationship with India—an aspect which I look forward to having more time to consider. We very much look forward to being a partner nation at the Indian engineering trade fair in New Delhi next February. More than 100 British firms have made bookings to take part in that event—a major response by British companies to a special opportunity to present themselves in the Indian market. India is an important export market. In 1989, our exports reached an all-time high of £1·4 billion. In the first four months of 1990, exports were up by over 18 per cent. on the same period in 1989.
Aid is important in our relationship because India is the largest recipient of British aid. Since 1981, more than £1 billion of British aid has been channelled there, either directly or through multilateral agencies. I do not think that a call to cut off that aid is sensible in the present circumstances. More people live in extreme poverty in India than anywhere else in the world, and much of our aid has been focused on the areas where it is most needed. In addition, the Indian authorities have a very good record of using aid effectively.
I do not propose to dwell on the long historical connections between Britain and India, some of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Pollok. Our shared past has certainly left us with many things in common which go far beyond language. Cricket is one connection of which we are currently all too well aware, having recently suffered two defeats, by what appears to be an excellent Indian side, in the one-day matches. It leads us to look forward to the test matches that are to follow.
We have similar, democratic administrative and legal systems, and both Britain and India rely on those institutions to protect the same values, democratic rights and civil liberties. Freedom of speech and the rule of law mean the same things to both our countries. A long historical connection and our shared past give India and Britain common objectives in our shared determination to sustain democratic institutions and individual freedom under the law.
The Kashmir dispute has dominated our discussion this evening—or should I say this morning?

Mr. Foulkes: The dawn is coming up.

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon—or Dawn!—Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is right to draw attention to the arrival of "rosy-fingered dawn", as I believe Homer described it.
The Kashmir dispute has caused us great concern; it has given rise to tension between India and Pakistan, which are both good friends of Britain. Our longstanding position on the dispute over the status of Kashmir has been, and remains, one of neutrality: I must repeat that to the hon. Member for Bradford, West, whom I have told the same thing before. When I say that our position remains one of neutrality, I am referring to our position on the dispute over the status of Kashmir, not to our attitude to abuses of human rights in Kashmir or, indeed, anywhere else in the world; we condemn such abuses, and have no attitude of neutrality towards them.
Our neutrality in regard to the dispute is not an indication of indifference. We believe that it can be settled only through agreement between the two Governments concerned. In our discussions with representatives of both the Pakistan and the Indian Government, we have made it clear that we believe that the dispute is one to be settled between them, and we hope that they will be able to reach a peaceful settlement of the issues involved. We have encouraged both sides to avoid conflict, which we are convinced that neither wants, and have offered to try to help them to resolve their dispute; but only—this seems to me entirely sensible—if both sides would like us to do so.
As has been pointed out, there have been a number of United Nations resolutions on Kashmir. In 1948 and 1949, the issue was whether Kashmir should accede to Pakistan or to India, and not independence; that was not on the table. Self-determination was always understood to mean the freedom of the Kashmiri people to choose between India and Pakistan. Britain voted in favour of the resolutions, the texts of which represented agreement between India and Pakistan at the time.
We must recognise that a great deal has happened since then. Two wars have been fought, and an agreement was reached in 1972 governing bilateral relations between India and Pakistan. Under that agreement—the Simla agreement—both countries agreed
to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed on between them".
Both sides also committed themselves in the Simla agreement to a
final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir.
Our longstanding position is entirely consistent with the terms of that agreement and we are confident that real progress in settling the dispute can be made only by agreements reached between India and Pakistan. The hon. Member for Bradford, West referred to the possibility of independence. The future of Kashmir is for India and Pakistan to resolve bilaterally, but neither of those countries has seen independence as an available option.
Reference has been made to the possibility of Amnesty International being allowed to visit India. I can confirm—and welcome—the Indian Government's decision to allow Amnesty International representatives to visit the country for private purposes, to hold seminars or discussions with the Indian Government. We have noted Indian readiness to consider applications from Amnesty International and other human rights organisations to


investigate human rights in Kashmir or elsewhere. The ball is now in Amnesty International's court and we hope that it will take advantage of the openings provided.
In the meantime, I hope that we can agree that there is no doubt that the tension between India and Pakistan has receded in recent weeks. That must be helpful in coming together peacefully. As I said, that must be the only way forward.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley referred to a meeting between the Foreign Ministers of India and Pakistan. It was, in fact, a meeting between the top officials of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of the Indian and Pakistan Governments. They met in Islamabad on 18 and 19 July to discuss ways of reducing tension over Kashmir. We have encouraged both sides to look positively at a series of confidence-building measures and are glad that they have agreed to meet again in New Delhi on 9 August to continue the discussions. That is a welcome decision. We welcome those moves and hope that they will contribute to the search for a peaceful and lasting solution to the current problems. As I have said before and must say again, it has always been our view that this issue should be dealt with bilaterally between India and Pakistan.
Not surprisingly, human rights abuses have featured in the debate. As I said in the House on 22 March, I do not think that anybody in India would claim that that country has an unblemished human rights record. The Indian Government are the first to concede that abuses have taken place. However, it is not fair to compare India with countries that systematically abuse human rights as a matter of Government policy. India is a democratic country with an independent legal system to which those who believe that they have been treated unfairly have recourse. There is a vibrantly free press in which injustices can be and are exposed. I have no doubt of the Indian Government's genuine commitment to the maintenance of political freedom and civil liberties. Of course we have seen the reports of excesses by the security forces in dealing with the disturbances in Kashmir.
We continue in our contacts with the Indian Government to make clear to them the deep concern of Ministers that human rights must be respected and to urge them to exercise the maximum restraint in their efforts to

control a difficult law and order problem. At the same time, we have repeatedly made clear that the use of violence for political ends cannot be condoned.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West and others referred to several incidents. Those have not gone unnoticed in India. The Indian press and Members of the Indian Parliament severely criticised the loss of control of the central reserve police force and the tragic incidents when they opened fire on mourners after the assassination of the Muslim Maulvi Mirwaiz Farooq on 21 May. That is indicative of what I said about the free press and the opportunity for free discussion in India and the basic respect in that country for our approach to democracy and civil rights.
Reference was made to the possibility of a plebiscite. The Government of India argue that ratification of the accession in 1954 by the elected Kashmir constituents assembly fulfilled the commitment to a test of popular opinion.
Reference was also made to the position in Punjab. I suspect that it is a sad measure of the intractability of the problems in Punjab that the Government's policies have failed so far to evoke a response from political groups in the state. The sharp escalation of violence, with more than 1,400 deaths so far this year, and intimidation by terrorist groups forced the Government in May to postpone state elections with a consequent loss of momentum towards a political accommodation.
We hope that the new governor of Punjab will be able to regenerate an atmosphere in which progress towards a political settlement can be made. The House will recognise that we do not face an easy situation. As I said, we condemn abuses of human rights wherever they occur. The Government will continue to do all we can to maintain the closest friendship with India and we will look for ways of strengthening our existing co-operation in many areas.
Although we cannot disguise the deep concern felt in this country and expressed in the House today at events in Kashmir, we know that the Indian Government are aware of the need to keep their security forces under tight control, to work for a reduction in tension with Pakistan and to revive political life in Kashmir. We hope that they will be able to bring all those essential tasks to a succesful conclusion as soon as possible. As I said, we remain ready to help in such ways as we can in those important tasks.

Global Warming

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Even at this late—or early—hour of the morning, I am grateful for the opportunity to open a short debate on global warming, a subject which has received, or is receiving, a great deal of attention at the moment.
My debate is a bit of a change of topic after nearly three hours of fascinating discussion on foreign affairs topics. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) linked foreign affairs and the subject of my debate earlier when he referred to people in a space craft looking down on the earth and visualising the problems of the earth as a whole. I believe that there is a link between this debate and the subjects that we discussed earlier this evening.
I am also grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), for being present at some inconvenience to himself. I am grateful to him for being here to reply to the debate at this very early hour of the morning. I also welcome the presence of the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). I fear that he may not be able to intervene, but it is good to see him here.
It is often forgotten that the greenhouse effect is basically benign. As a physics teacher before I became a Member of Parliament, I regularly used to teach about its effects. I can assure the House that I do not intend to discuss the physics of the greenhouse effect, but without it the temperature of the earth's surface would be 33 deg C cooler than it is, which would wipe out human life. On the planet Venus, where the atmosphere is almost totally made up of carbon dioxide, it is very hot so hot that metals would melt. As a result of human activity, we have increased the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and also released new ones—for example, chlorofluorocarbons, which are not present in nature into the atmosphere. The result is increased global warming and forecasts of further global warming.
It is good to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson), who will refer to CFCs in particular and to the action that should be or is being taken to reduce CFC emissions into the atmosphere. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), who will talk about the European approach to this matter through his experience on the Council of Europe. It is good to see my hon. Friends present at this late hour.
Predictions about future global temperature rises require the use of complex mathematical models of the climate system. Along with several of my colleagues, I recently had the opportunity to visit the climatic research unit at the university of East Anglia, where the uncertainty associated with predictions was explained. It is interesting to note that predictions about warming caused by the release of excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere were actually made in the very first press release when the unit at the university of East Anglia was started back in 1970. The university of East Anglia has an international reputation which is second to none for the careful recording and compilation of temperature data and is working on the implications of the temperature changes currently being predicted.
Great emphasis has been placed in the local press and media, particularly in East Anglia, on sea level changes. The latest view from the team at the university, however, is that recurrent drought will be a more serious problem if global warming progresses as predicted. That point is certainly topical this week, when it is likely that new water restriction measures may come into force during the present possible drought. We may therefore soon need to design methods to move water from the western uplands of Wales and Scotland to the hotter and drier east of this country.
At a recent engineering assembly held at Surrey university, Sir John Mason, a former director-general of the Meteorological Office, said that changes to global and regional climates over the next half century will be small, slow to develop and difficult to detect among natural fluctuations in temperature and rainfall. Although Sir John counselled against drastic action, he agreed that
it would be prudent to take practical and economically sensible measures to conserve energy, curb the rise in carbon dioxide and phase out the use of CFCs that both deplete the ozone layer and contribute to global warming.
The "best bet" forecast is that by the year 2030 the world will be about 1 to 2 deg C warmer than it is today. That leads to forecasts of sea level rises between 14 and 24 cm, coupled with increased frequency of flooding and inundation of low-lying lands such as East Anglia. Of course there are also accompanied predictions, the details of which I do not have time to discuss, of climate changes and effects on agriculture.
More detail can be found in the excellent brief that was prepared by the parliamentary office of science and technology, the acronym for which is POST. That unit was set up by the parliamentary scientific committee. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of that office. The briefs that it prepares for use by Members of Parliament are well put together. In preparation for this debate, I used its brief not only on global warming but on energy efficiency.
During any discussion on global warming, we should concentrate on how quickly or drastically we should adjust our behaviour and policies to respond to the facts and predictions that have been well documented, but on which I do not have time to go into great detail.
The approach taken by peoples, nations and Governments ranges from active to passive measures. The latter mean that we sit back and let society adapt to the changes as they occur. That is a dangerous approach, however, as the capacity of nations to adapt may he insufficient if the changes occur too quickly. We must be cautious in our approach to the problem and consider more active solutions to it. I agree with professor Keith Clayton of the university of East Anglia that we should, at the very least, tackle some of the easier changes now. We would then be better placed to deal with some of the more difficult issues later on.
The Prime Minister's recent speech at the opening of the Hadley centre for climate prediction and research acknowledged the reality of the threat. My right hon. Friend set down a commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by some 30 per cent. by 2005.
As always, there are those who are trying to urge us to move faster, but in the presence of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary I acknowledge the real efforts that the Government are making to tackle environmental issues and pollution. No previous


Government have done so much to speak about the environment and to take sensible, practical measures to deal with it. I take this opportunity to put that on the record. It is easy to say that we should move faster, but we should pay tribute to what is already being done.
I agree with the Minister who said at the engineering assembly at Surrey that environmental problems were technical problems which could be solved only with technical solutions.
We cannot stop the world and say that we want to get off as it is all getting a bit dangerous. That is not the right approach, but some of the crazier members of the green movement tend to adopt such an approach. They believe that we can go backwards, but that is not possible. The technical problems that have arisen from man-made pollution must be tackled with technical solutions. I also agreed with the Minister when he said at that assembly that poverty is the greatest pollutant of all. One need only study the pollution record of eastern Europe and the destruction of the rain forests to understand that.
Engineers have a crucial role to play in dealing with all environmental problems, particularly global warming and its associated problems. As a founder member of the all-party group for engineering development, I shall continue to campaign whenever the opportunity arises—even in the middle of the night—for ways to encourage our professional engineers. Their status in society should be increased and we should recognise the contribution that they can make in dealing with environmental problems. That has been taken on board by the Engineering Council and others at recent conferences. In future, we must ensure that engineers increasingly think in environmental terms.
A number of immediate, achievable steps could be taken to deal with global warming, reductions in carbon dioxide and other emissions. It is imperative that we reopen the debate on nuclear power, which has somehow faded from view as a result of electricity privatisation and other changes. We must start to talk about nuclear power again, as I do not need to remind the House about the dangers of emissions from fossil fuels. In 1987 Britain produced 2·8 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person, compared with 1·7 tonnes produced in France. The difference is due to the fact that France relies on nuclear power for almost all her electricity. The electric trains of France are one way in which the emission of greenhouse gases is reduced as they are run on electricity generated by nuclear power.
I hope that the Government will also do all that they can to encourage alternative sources of energy such as solar, tidal and wind energy. I see no reason to slacken our efforts in those directions.
Thirdly, we must consider combined heat and power, which I have always supported. It is interesting to note that today my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) asked the Secretary of State for Energy
what are the latest estimates from the Energy Technology Support Unit of the potential kilowatts that could be contributed from combined heat and power; by how much such potential would raise the overall thermal efficiency of electricity generation; and what percentage contribution this could make to a reduction in greenhouse … emissions.
The Minister replied:
The latest estimate is that a potential of 25 billion kilowatt-hours annual generation from small-scale CHP, operating at an efficiency of around 80 per cent., could reduce

United Kingdom carbon dioxide emissions by 4 per cent. This level of output equates to about 10 per cent. of present United Kingdom electricity demand or the output of about four large power stations.
My hon. Friend has informed me that the reply refers only to small-scale combined heat and power projects—at hotels, leisure centres, hospitals, and so on. If we took into account all the combined heat and power potential—in industries, large cities, and so on—we could increase the 4 per cent. to some 10 per cent. The potential is there, through the use of combined heat and power and through greater efficiency in the use of energy, to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 10 per cent. I make no apology for dwelling on that.
Fourthly, we must consider energy efficiency. That is one of the easy steps which can be taken without drastic changes and the Government should be examining it more seriously. It must be right to encourage further energy conservation measures. I have seen it stated more than once that the newly privatised electricity companies may well find that they can earn more and become more profitable by encouraging people to use less electricity rather than by building massive new power stations. I have seen that argument advanced seriously in various articles and learned journals. In his discussions with his colleagues in the Department of Energy, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State should do all that he can to persuade them to reopen the debate about energy efficiency and conservation. A year or so ago we had a strong energy efficiency campaign. That should be continued and not allowed just to fall away.
It can be seen that a great deal can be done now, without waiting for more drastic changes—perhaps in our transport habits—which may have to follow. If time permits, some of my hon. Friends may wish to refer in more detail to the way in which we can reduce emissions of the greenhouse gases through changes in the way in which we use the motor car and so on. Time prevents me from examining such matters in my opening speech, but that does not mean that I do not regard them as important—they are very important. It is also important to realise that the United Kingdom accounts for only 3 per cent. of the world's emissions of carbon dioxide. It is clearly vital that international agreement and action are achieved. Otherwise, anything that we may do to reduce pollution and the emission of greenhouse gases will be of no use. I stress the importance of international co-operation, which I am sure will be taken up by my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Stoke-in-Trent, North (Ms. Walley), who is to speak from the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: My hon. Friend rightly stresses the importance of international agreement. In view of what he said about the pollution caused by industry in eastern Europe, does he agree that any aid that we give to eastern Europe should be tied to eastern Europe's improving all its various forms of plant, which at present emit so much pollution?

Mr. Thompson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that thought, with which I wholly agree.
I hope that the Minister will accept my good words for what the Government are doing and have done on the environment. I also hope that he will accept that in many areas much more can be achieved now, possibly in small


ways. I hope that he will recognise that with a suitable lead from him and his colleagues in the Government we can make progress.
The consensus among scientists and experts is that global warming is a reality and will lead to difficulties for future generations. We must adopt an active, not a passive approach. I hope that the Minister will discuss all this with his colleagues and reflect on the points that I have made. I am grateful to him for being here to answer the debate.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this extremely important debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), who outlined a number of problems, and a number of solutions, and stressed that the Government pay great heed to these problems and have an excellent record of finding answers. I am sure that they will continue to find them into the coming decade.
I want to discuss three subjects: first, chlorofluorocarbons; secondly, one of the causes of global warming—the internal combustion engine; and, thirdly, the effect of global warming on the water crisis.
CFCs not only destroy the ozone layer; they are greenhouse gases. The first activity is responsible for the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. I welcome the Montreal protocol and its review in London last month, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I also welcome the measures taken at the conference. But the fact remains that chlorine already present in the atmosphere will continue to destroy ozone for more than 100 years to come.
There are further threats from HFCs and HCFCs. What further measures are needed to combat them? I could do worse than quote the report commissioned by the DTI from Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte:
We believe that Government could ease the process and cost of compliance with a tougher regime by a combination of:

awareness programmes aimed at improving understanding of the Protocol and its likely impact;
education and training initiatives to encourage the use of best practice (eg good housekeeping);
guidelines on labelling of products containing or made with CFCs and halons to facilitate informed consumer choice;
public purchasing guidelines and standards with regard to products and services using CFCs and halons.

The costs of compliance could be further reduced and emissions from the 'bank' of CFCs and halons could be controlled by Government encouragement of recovery, recycling and destruction. We have considered the variety of forms such encouragement could take and have concluded that, within a more stringent Protocol regime, the main options which Government should examine most closely are:
awareness and demonstration programmes focused on applications where the recovery and recycling economics look potentially favourable, ie solvents, industrial and retail refrigeration and fire extinguishers; labelling guidelines and standards with the option.for mandatory labelling at a later date;
public purchasing requirements and standards; and means for reducing the costs of destruction which could take the form of R&amp;D support or operating subsidies.
I hope that the Government will bear those recommendations in mind. The importance of the ozone layer and its preservation cannot be over-emphasised. As I said, there is already enough chlorine in the atmosphere to go on destroying ozone for more than 100 years.

Mr. Michael Lord: My hon. Friend mentioned labelling. Some of the most difficult problems are caused by substances that enter the environmental chain. We must know how they get there and how we can get them out. Crucial to that is the way that the housewife selects what she will use because some materials will enter the environmental chain while others will not. Labelling is therefore crucial.

Mr. Summerson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. One or two unscrupulous manufacturers label their products with such words as "ozone friendly" when they are not ozone friendly at all. Consumer pressure is needed to ensure that labelling on things such as aerosol cans is accurate. My hon. Friend raises an important issue.
My second point is about pollution in our towns and cities. In the recent hot weather the exhaust emissions from internal combustion engines have caused smog. Measures must be taken to deal with that. It is amazing that we share our streets with that most noisesome invention. When cars were first produced not many people had them, but nowadays most people do. We should not have to share our air with cars.
People who work in London know that when they go into the street they do not breathe God's free, pure air. We breathe a mixture of air and all sorts of exhaust gases from petrol and diesel engines which are extremely bad for us. I hope that one day the internal combustion engine will be banned from our streets. The situation is distressing for asthmatics. I am asthmatic and I know what it is like in this hot weather to have to breathe polluted air. Pollution has greatly increased chest infections and people are sickening because of it.
If we had good public transport in our towns and cities people might not feel so inclined to use their motor cars. I am talking about public transport and not publicly owned transport. Trams and trolley buses must be considered, not diesel-engined buses. We should encourage the use of bicycles by the provision of bicycle lanes. Our towns and cities would be more pleasant if people used small electric cars which are much quieter than internal combustion engines. There would be no roar at traffic lights as people tried to gain 100 yards on the car next to them.
I had to cycle round Trafalgar square the other day and passed at least half a dozen tourist buses parked at the side of the road. They all had their engines running and there was no one in any of them, not even the driver. The buses included those from the official London Transport tour, the London tourist tour or whatever it is called, and Evan Evans Tours. The whole lot were sitting there with their engines running. That is disgraceful. A leaflet was sent to me recently by the AA, of which I happen to be a member. I do not know whether that is why it sent it to me. It lays down several good ideas for reducing smog and exhaust emissions. It says:
Keep your car in good order.
It sounds so simple, but it means bringing the car in for service at regular intervals. It also says, "Plan long journeys properly" and tells people to take the train if they can. That is remarkable coming from the AA. It says:
Try to use the car less.
It tells us to switch off if we are caught in traffic jams and calls for:
Better roads for all. Better public transport, too.
That is all good stuff.
I also commend the latest initiative from the Department of Transport. I have here a publication called "Traffic in London". It is a further development of the "Traffic in London" initiative. It is fine as far as it goes. I just wonder whether it goes far enough because, although I have only glanced through it, it does not seem to say anything about reducing the number of vehicles in Greater London.
My last point is about the water crisis. I believe that the crisis is an effect of global warming. I am sure that we all remember being told as children—perhaps we were reluctant to have a wash—"There is plenty of water in the tap." Not so long ago, there was plenty of water in the tap. But, of course, water has to come from somewhere. Today it comes from not only reservoirs and lakes but aquifers in the chalk, rivers and boreholes. Water is abstracted from all sources.
I am a fisherman. I know that spring-fed rivers such as the Test and Avon in Hampshire are suffering serious problems because the level of ground water has been lowered by abstraction and pumping. That water is being used in our towns and cities, which are the main centres of use of water. Many urban inhabitants simply do not seem to realise that the water that comes out of their tap has come from somewhere and that the fact that it comes out of their tap means that it is no longer available to run down a river 100 miles away.
Most people nowadays have washing machines. A washing machine uses about 24 gallons of water at a time. There was an article in yesterday's Evening Standard about a sprinkler used in Kensington gardens to water a patch of lawn. A sprinkler will use in a couple of hours more water than an entire family will use in two days. There is a serious problem with water. The hotter the weather becomes, the more water is used. We need a campaign to educate the public that water is an extremely precious natural resource which is not to be wasted. The public should not wash their teeth while leaving the tap running. People need to be told about those things.
Metering of water is important. If we do not have metering the public will not be aware of how precious water is and all the problems that I mentioned—of rivers literally drying up in various parts of the country—will continue.

Mr. Lord: My hon. Friend mentioned metering of water. We have seen many reports about the cost of installing meters and the difficulties that individuals face. Does he agree that it would be in everyone's interest if installation of a meter were made as simple and cheap as possible. Does he also agree that, whatever the cost in the short term, it will be more than repaid in the long term both in cost and in water conservation, as he said?

Mr. Summerson: I agree with my hon. Friend. If the average consumer were told that he was obliged to have a meter installed at a cost of £100 or £200, he would kick and be rather unhappy with the idea. However, if the meter were to be installed at a nominal cost, with the balance spread over his water bill, the consumer would probably be much happier.

Mr. Michael Lord: I,too, am grateful for the opportunity to participate in a debate on an important topic which concerns many people. Great credit must go to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) for introducing this topic. Like him, I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Minister in his place, because I know of his great interest in environmental matters.
Two aspects of crucial importance to global warming and to many other environmental issues are the criteria used to judge when we should act and the best organisations to use in getting things done.
What criteria should be applied, and how much evidence should we have before we act? Whether we are dealing with global warming, acid rain, the ozone layer or even sewage dumping, in the past there was a temptation to wait until all the scientific evidence proved beyond doubt the need to act. We have tended to want everything accurate to three decimal places before being prepared to act decisively. I believe that that approach is wrong, and it is increasingly being questioned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North said that I am a member of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe. I serve on its scientific and technology committee, which recently held in Ottawa its seventh parliamentary and scientific conference, at which we discussed global warming. That conference was attended by experts from all over the world having the highest possible qualifications. Not least among them was a professor from the university of East Anglia, Professor Tim O'Riordan, who made a valuable contribution to our debates.
One thing that strongly impressed at that conference was the need for a new approach to the way in which we define the scientific need to act. That decision must be based on scientific evidence, but it must also have a large injection of common sense and some sympathy with the natural environment. If we wait until we have all the evidence, we shall be too late. Conversely, we must not act impetuously or precipitately.
That approach is more common among individuals, who find it easier to combine scientific facts with the need to act. We must now persuade Governments to take those feelings on board. Perhaps I may give a personal illustration of the attitude that I have in mind.
If someone spent some time camping beside a nice river, and discovered when it was time to leave that he had half a gallon of paraffin left over that he did not want to carry home, he might be tempted to get rid of it by chucking it in the river. If one asked a scientist whether such an action would do the river any lasting harm, he would probably reply, "No; lost in the size of the river, such a small quantity of paraffin could not do any damage." Nevertheless, I venture to suggest that none of us would do such a thing, because something inside would tell us that it was wrong, and that—despite what the scientist said—some harm would be done. Somewhere in the chain, down the river, that half a gallon will have a detrimental effect, especially if many other campers have the same thing in mind. That is a simple example, but I do not know whether hon. Members understand what I am trying to say scientific evidence says one thing, but one's basic natural instincts say another. What is needed now is a combination of the two.
Out of the Council of Europe's scientific conference in Ottawa came a feeling that we need to act on all the scientific evidence, but we need to make a science out of not waiting until we have had all the evidence, because if we do it will be too late.
A good example—although it is not exactly on the subject that we are debating—is the question of hormones in beef. Farmers used hormones to increase the speed at which beef cattle grew. All the evidence suggested that it did no harm, yet a ban was introduced, is in force now and the practice was stopped. I think that everyone—even those people who believed that it was scientifically shown that it did no harm—is happier now that those hormones are banned.
We must err on the safe and natural side—not without scientific evidence, but without waiting till we have all the evidence, to three decimal places, because by that time it will be too late for many of these issues.
Acid rain is another example and one with which I am more familiar than global warming, although they are not entirely unrelated. The link between acid rain and the emissions from various power stations cannot be proved, yet trees are dying and we know the problems that we face. We also know of the pollutants that emerge from our industrial installations. It must make sense to tackle those pollutants, even though we cannot in every specific case prove the link between pollution and the damage that occurs. Those are my thoughts on the criteria that we should use, and the way that we should approach the actions that we take and the time when we should act.
Trees and tree planting are appropriate to tonight's debate. The Minister will know of my interest in this. At the moment, the tropical rain forests are being destroyed, great problems are caused by tree destruction in the world, and there is a huge demand for more trees to be planted. Trees are often called our "green lung", which is not strictly correct because our lungs need oxygen and give out carbon dioxide. Trees—bless their hearts—have been designed in such a wonderful way that they take in what we do not want—our waste carbon dioxide—and give us back the oxygen that we so desperately need. They are not lungs in the technical sense, but the term "green lungs" describes the great natural effect that they have in invigorating the world.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my hon. Friend agree on a point that has not really come out in the debate—that one way to deal with the greenhouse effect and to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is to plant more trees? That is a positive action which we can take in this country or internationally.

Mr. Lord: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I need no prompting—although I am grateful to him for prompting me—as tree planting is a pet subject of mine. He may know that, for my sins, I have the honour to be the president of the Arboricultural Association. I am keen to get more trees planted.
Clearly the main place to plant trees is in forests and wide open places, and it is also crucial that we stop the cutting down of trees and desertification in the third world, so I want more trees to be planted worldwide, including in this country. I hope that we can use much more imagination to get trees planted in inner cities and in places where we would not normally think of planting them.
I often think that we should plant more trees on our motorways. I know that there are problems if trees grow too tall, or if the leaves drop on the motorway, but there is much scope for planting alongside, for example of dwarf and ornamental species. I venture to suggest that it is possible that our motorways might become long arboreta, snaking across the nation so that they would be a joy to drive along. The monotony would be broken up. We would not need crash barriers in the middle because there would be not oak trees, as they get too large, but a whole variety of other trees. Like the Minister, I have a great deal of interest in that issue and it is more than an idle suggestion that we might use motorways for such purposes.
Certainly in inner cities and in many areas where it is not possible to rebuild housing, tree planting would be an ideal solution to improve the atmosphere in the way that we are discussing, and to improve the look of the city and general amenities.
I have referred principally to the criteria that we should use before we act. I intend to refer briefly to the organisation that would best deliver those changes. I believe that a continental bloc would be the best organisation to do that. The continent of Europe would be an important vehicle, particularly as represented by the Council of Europe.
Individual countries can do a great deal. My hon. Friend has already referred to the Government's record in tackling pollution. Great improvements have been made. To continue to call the United Kingdom the dirty man of Europe is grossly unfair, after all the action that we have taken. It is very much a misnomer. This country's record now is pretty good.
It is interesting to reflect on the power of individual nations. In the past a nation's power depended on the might of its army or industrial wealth. Many people refer to this country as having lost its empire and not exerting the influence that it once had. However, military might is no longer so important. The world's industrial power is now multinational. Therefore, a nation's moral power and leadership will become much more important. Consequently, our country has a great deal to give to the world, purely in terms of its leadership and experience of these issues. We can give a lead and persuade. It is crucial for us to set an example by cleaning up our own environment. Then we can take the lead in the international debate.
An individual nation can do only so much. It can clean up its own pollution and give a lead abroad. I do not have a great deal of faith in the UN. Its history suggests that it is too large, too loosely jointed and insufficiently dynamic to do the job that needs to be done. I hope that I am not being unduly pessimistic, but I do not have a great deal of faith that the UN would be able to implement the kind of dynamic policies that must be implemented. Therefore, I return to the idea of a continental bloc. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North referred to the fact that the United Kingdom's carbon dioxide emissions amount to only 3 per cent. of the world's emissions. That shows the extent of the problem in this country, but it points even more to the need to involve all the other nations of the world if we are to improve matters. The continental bloc might be the ideal vehicle for solving some of these problems.
Geographically, Europe is significant. Its size is important. Rivers and clouds pay no respect to


boundaries, and one nation alone cannot tackle the problems. Because of its size, Europe could play a useful role. Financial and political co-operation would be needed. Europe is sufficiently large to make great improvements and get things moving. If we could reduce pollution fairly rapidly in an area the size of Europe, it would be a major step forward. Therefore, I recommend to the Minister the Council of Europe. He is, I know, familiar with it already, but I remind the House that it covers the whole of Europe. Every democracy in Europe is a member of the Council of Europe. Russia, Hungary, Poland and Yugoslavia are all guest members of the Council of Europe, and Hungary and Poland are applying for full membership. Therefore, the Council of Europe contains not only the democracies of Europe, but countries from eastern Europe where there are tremendous pollution problems.
If the Minister looks at some of the Council of Europe's projects and reports in recent years, he will see that a massive amount of valuable work has been done on the sort of issues that we are discussing. The Council of Europe meets regularly, has an established framework and is there, ready to be used. The European bloc is the ideal geographical size to tackle pollution problems, and the Council of Europe is the vehicle to do so.
I shall finish by giving an end-of-term report on the Government's progress. If I were a headmaster—I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North has much more experience than I do—I would say to the Government that I had seen much improvement, and there was room for congratulation, but there was still an awful lot to be done, and time was not on their side.
I leave the Minister with the following thought: do not wait for conclusive proof on every issue before acting. We need only sufficient proof to know that we should act, so we should use our common sense. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North talked about the best-bet forecast. I know what he meant, but on such issues we cannot afford to use best bets or to gamble. We must act on the evidence we have, using our common sense, before we reach that stage. If the Minister wants a vehicle for progress in Europe, I recommend that he uses the Council of Europe.

Ms. Joan Walley: We have just heard a plea for presumptive action against pollution, which is most important. This debate in the early hours has demonstrated that global warming is a reality which we ignore at our peril.
The concerns that the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) have expressed at various times are understandable, particularly during this morning's debate. East Anglia is an area where there is great concern about the effect and the impact of global warming. It is regrettable that an early report on global warming, which looked at the impact of global warming on sea defences and generally, was shelved. When the Minister winds up, I should like him to say why. I mention that report to repeat the point that has just been made so well—that we cannot wait for action, but must take presumptive action against pollution and act now.
Two factors contribute to our changing atmosphere. First, we are producing gases that make the atmosphere a better heat trap. Secondly, we are cutting down forests, particularly tropical rain forests, which have the ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. The earlier comments about trees underlined the importance of tree planting. I should certainly be far happier if the Government's contribution to the tropical rain forest action programme were based more on environmental considerations.
The relative contributions of the gases to global warming have been calculated as follows: carbon dioxide, 50 per cent.; methane 18 per cent.; CFCs 14 per cent.; nitrous oxide and ozone 18 per cent. Sooner or later, global warming will catch up with us, and we ignore it now at our peril.
Although there is no scientific consensus on the speed and scope of the changes, there is wide agreement that global warming is with us now. A recent Department of the Environment study suggested a temperature increase of 3 deg C and a rise in sea levels of 80 cm. Despite that —this is the important point—the United Kingdom has not produced a clear and detailed policy on greenhouse gas reduction. The work on the subject by the university of East Anglia is welcome and I hope that it will be allowed to contribute to the ongoing debate, which must proceed much faster. In the absence of specific policies and initiatives, the business-as-usual approach best characterises Government thinking on global warming. I agree with the head teacher's end of term report that we have just heard on the Government.
The Government admit that the problem exists but prefer to await the results of international discussions and further research—some of which will take several years to finish—before committing themselves to action. In contrast, Labour Members insist that we must take on board the principle of presumption against pollution and act now before it is too late.
The Prime Minister's eloquent speech to the UN General Assembly on 8 November 1989 makes the Government's record of inaction even more serious. Indeed, her latest speech to mark the opening of the Hadley centre for climate prediction and research referred to the international panel on climate change. In calling for a target of 30 per cent. by the year 2005, she showed that she had accepted stabilisation of emissions and that she had abdicated any responsibility that she could claim for upholding environmental protection.
The report produced by the 300 scientists of working group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was chaired by the United Kingdom Meteorological Office, leaves no doubt that global warming is a major threat to the future of the planet and that action to counter it cannot be postponed. There must be a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, no CFC gases and a 30 per cent. reduction in methane and other gases. We accept that that cannot be done overnight, but we must control those gases.
The debate is timely, not least because of the reports at the weekend in The Sunday Correspondent. It has been reported that the IPCC scientists' next key report has been drastically watered down due to political pressure from the super-powers. The policy response group for working group 3 of the IPCC was meant to advise on the practicalities and costs for each country, and on concerns outlined by scientists, but it seems that there will be no


indication of the targets or the costs involved in tackling global warming. Conservative Members will wish to raise these matters with the Under-Secretary of State, and I should like him to confirm whether those proposals have been watered down and recommendations, such as the greater use of energy efficiency technologies by western European countries, dropped from the latest report. If that is so, does it explain the extraordinary behaviour of the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State for the Environment in the Committee on the Environmental Protection Bill, when they voted against one of our amendments to include energy efficiency as an important part of integrated pollution control? The Government have been saying for a long time that they are waiting for the IPCC report, which is due for discussion at the second world environment conference this autumn, but that is not good enough. We cannot depend on a watered-down document for important and urgent policy decisions.
The United Kingdom must seize the initiative and push OECD countries for an early initial agreement to stabilise gas emissions and look to make cuts over 12 months. The least that must be done is an agreement on stabilisation within the EC by the year 2000, but, again, what are the Government doing? Will the Under-Secretary confirm that they opposed such a proposal in June and once more set themselves against a European agreement? If only we had a Government who played a full role in what is happening in western Europe on these most important issues. The Prime Minister's pledge to cut projected emissions of carbon dioxide by 30 per cent. by the year 2005 is no more than a pledge to freeze current emissions by the year 2005—a full five years behind other EC Governments.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Much of the carbon dioxide emission comes from the burning of fossil fuels. I said earlier that, like many other hon. Members, I believed that we should reopen the debate on nuclear power, perhaps giving greater emphasis to it as a means of dealing with these greenhouse gases. Does the hon. Lady agree?

Ms. Walley: No, I do not agree. I shall come to the important steps that we can take to provide the energy that we need, hearing in mind the important principles—under which we shall operate—of energy efficiency and of using alternative energy sources. That is the basis of our energy programme.
The EC Environment Commissioner, Carlo Ripa di Meana, rightly attacked the British position, as it will
cause problems since the date proposed by the UK conflicts with the stricter date which the Commission has already put forward.
Contrary to the prospect of this country playing a leading role in Europe, our problems with carbon dioxide emissions will be similar to the ones that we face with water because of dirty beaches and low standards of drinking water.
The Opposition support the EC target of freezing emissions at current levels by the year 2000. We recognise that this will not go far enough and that we shall need significant cuts by the early years of the next century. Meanwhile, the Government claim that each country has different energy needs and capabilities in the EC. They now claim to be the "honest broker" in negotiations, but that is a falsehood. Within the EC, Germany, Italy, France and the United Kingdom can reduce emissions, leaving room for Spain and Portugal to make small increases—leaving overall stabilisation.
The Government must not shirk their responsibilities at the October meeting of EC Environment Ministers and possibly also Energy Ministers. Action on an EC agreement will provide the stimulus for an international agreement by 1992, overriding the political fudging by the United States and Japan under the IPCC.

Mr. Lord: I should like to underline the point that I made earlier about the Council of Europe. The European Community, however much it may try to do, consists of only 12 nations in Europe. All these environmental issues are geographical rather than political. It is, therefore, important to have a body covering the whole of Europe, not just the 12 nations in the Community. Does the hon. Lady agree?

Ms. Walley: Because no one country can act on its own, it is important that we take the initiative and show leadership in whatever groups or blocs in which that is natural. Eventually, we shall work on a global stage and seek the international co-operation so important to the future of our planet.
The Opposition believe that the political leadership must come at the outset from this country and western Europe, so that developed countries such as Japan are persuaded to come on board. It would be unthinkable for us to make important contributions without their taking part. We have heard from the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), about the pain and anguish of stabilisation, as though he would have us believe that even stabilisation is beyond the realms of possibility. That has no intellectual standing. Two independent reports in the past month have shown that the costs of a stabilisation policy are not high and that such action is practicable. The science policy research unit analysis forecasts zero cost stabilisation and a cost of only 0·3 per cent. of gross national product for a 20 per cent. cut in emissions by the year 2005. A report by the Stockholm Environment Institute predicts net savings in reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 12 per cent. Six energy efficiency measures implemented over the next 15 years could cost up to £20 billion, but would save £118 billion for the economy. Where is the pain and anguish in that? Where is the high cost? If the Government are so intent on claiming the green mantle, why are they not prepared to make a real contribution to combat global warming, as was stated at the Berger conference?
We believe that the Government's stance is pure political manipulation. The Department of Energy's projections, which the Prime Minister has pledged to cut, have been deliberately exaggerated to make the Prime Minister's pledge seem far more radical than it is. Even the study produced by the energy technology support unit for the Downing street seminar on global warming—held last year—is significantly below the Department's projections.
Will the Under-Secretary tell us whether the report to which the Prime Minister referred, and on which I questioned her at Prime Minister's Question Time early in June, bears the test of peer review? Surely one of the first rules of science is that the results of studies must be opened up to peer review. If that cannot happen, the report has failed on the first principle. In fact, leaked documents from the CBI confirm that the Department puts little trust in its projections, seeing them purely as bargaining tools to be


used with both the IPCC and the Department of the Environment. The CBI's internal assessment of the Government's study says that
the report's projections of CO2 emissions appear to be excessively high".
To put the Government's energy projection in perspective, it assumes that demand for energy over the next three decades will be greater than the growth of demand in the 1960s, a decade of heavy growth in both industry and the domestic sector. To reach those levels of consumption it will be necessary, as the CBI notes, to reverse the trends of the late 1970s and early 1980s. It is inconceivable that Britain will regain all the heavy industries that it lost during the devastation of the 1980s.
The Department of Energy's projections also assume a major growth of between 18 and 26 per cent. in the consumption of energy in the domestic sector by 2005; yet models based on data collected by the Government's own Building Research Establishment estimate, at worst, zero growth in energy demand in the domestic sector. That is because growth in the domestic sector is roughly balanced by existing trends towards increased insulation and more effective central heating boilers. Such trends could so easily be developed by Government action, further increasing energy efficiency—the most effective policy approach to combat global warming.
According to Government research, the industrial and commercial energy survey scheme identified £35 worth of energy savings to be made for every £1 spent. Despite its success and its potential for energy saving, it was abolished in 1988. Government neglect of energy efficiency measures is deep rooted. Privatisation is the first priority at the Department of Energy, and I do not think that the statement that we heard earlier today has made any difference to that.
To dwell too long on the Department's abysmal record would, however, be to neglect the outrageous failures of the Government's transport policies. I was interested by what the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) had to say about transport. Road transport is a significant contributor to pollution and the associated problems of global warming. In the United Kingdom, according to 1987 figures, it is responsible for the emission of just under 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, 4.5 million tonnes of carbon monoxide and more that 1 million tonnes of nitrogen oxides. A continuing increase in traffic can only worsen those problems, yet the Government are working on the basis of an increase of between 83 and 142 per cent. by the year 2025. Run-down public transport can only add to the pressure on the roads, but building more roads will not solve the problem.
An increase in carbon dioxide emissions in the transport sector of between 47 and 55 per cent. by the year 2005 assumes an increase of between 25 and 30 per cent. in the number of vehicles in urban areas. Road developments to accommodate that are assessed on a cost-benefit basis, but public transport investment is required to show a substantial financial return. The Government's approach rejects any objective means of determining what is best for the community, and any real prospect of objectively measuring environmental impact assessments. We need to encourage the use of an integrated public transport system, more efficient engines in cars and more sensible use of private cars.
In the absence of targets and objectives for air pollution and other environmental effects, the opportunities for rational assessment of new road proposals, traffic management measures and other regulations are reduced. There are no national policies or limits for atmospheric pollution or environmental disbenefits which could set a framework within which the development of the transport infrastructure could be assessed.
The hype and euphoria at last year's Conservative party conference led to lavish praise for the Secretary of State for the Environment and talk of a promised White Paper on the environment as radical as the Beveridge report in setting up the national health service. Twelve months on, the environment is still in poor health and, according to our end of term report, it is getting worse, but the political bravado is missing. Ministers have desperately been talking down the impact of the forthcoming White Paper. The Government's bluff has been called and the Government have been found lacking.
Last July, National Opinion Polls was commissioned to establish whether people believed that the Government were doing enough to assist energy conservation. Only one in 10 endorsed that view and no fewer than 79 per cent. said that the Government were not doing enough. The failure to incorporate new initiatives on energy conservation into the Environmental Protection Bill, did nothing to improve the public perception of lackadaisical neglect, and the imminent humiliating climb-down on the White Paper will provide further cause for concern.
The report last week by the Institution of Civil Engineers, "Pollution and its Containment", put the case simply. It said:
Government intervention is crucial since pollution of the environment is a classic example of market failure, and action by individuals or groups smaller than governments is likely to be ineffective.
As has already been said, engineers have an important role to play in combating global warming, and I welcome that report.
The Opposition are committed to an independent, national regulatory body and environmental protection executive. That is long overdue. It is necessary to make effective the development and enforcement of policy by Government. We cannot leave it to the consumer to demand proper labelling of goods. We need access to information as of right. International agreements will be brought effectively into domestic policy and environmental protection will be at the heart of our policies.
That is a level of commitment which the Government have never approached. Their hot air rhetoric on global warming lacks substance and their inaction on—and, in some cases, opposition to—international initiatives is inexcusable.

Mr. Summerson: The hon. Lady is being slightly ungracious. She has not once mentioned the retro-fitting of flue gas desulphurisation at Drax power station, the largest power station in Europe. I remind the hon. Lady that that power station was commissioned by the Labour Government in the 1970s. They were offered the opportunity of fitting FGD when it was built but turned it down. It has been left to this Government, at a cost of nearly £1 billion, to retro-fit Drax power station.

Ms. Walley: Retro-fitting at power stations is crucial. I wait with interest to see to what extent the programme will go forward from strength to strength in the new form that the industry is to take.
Time is running out. Whether I say it graciously or ungraciously, the Government's inaction and opposition to international initiatives is inexcusable. Global warming needs positive action. The Government have every opportunity to lead the way towards international agreements. It is a responsibility from which, for all our sakes, they must not escape.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on choosing this subject for debate and on the thoughtful and persuasive way in which he set out his arguments. He managed effectively to place constituency and regional concerns in a global context. That was entirely appropriate, because climate change is a global problem or it is nothing. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was the first world statesman to draw attention to global warming, in a major speech to the Royal Society nearly two years ago.
In his introductory remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North rightly said that global warming is a natural phenomenon and that the greenhouse effect is essential to support life. We must act on the build-up of greenhouse gases which is occurring at ever-increasing rates and is threatening to upset the balance of the climate in potentially damaging ways. That concern led the international community to establish the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was charged with the task of looking at the science of climate change and the impacts and possible response to that change.
Working group 1 of the IPCC is chaired by Dr. Houghton, the chief executive of the Meteorological Office, and it has issued its report. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North referred to the report's main findings, which are that global temperatures will, on a business-as-usual scenario, rise by about 0·3 deg C per decade. That is faster than anything that we have seen for the past 10,000 years or so. If unchecked, and I emphasise that the predictions are based on the assumption that nothing is done to check emissions, there would be serious consequences. Those consequences include the sea level rising beyond the somewhat modest rises that will occur anyway as a result of the global warming to which we are already committed. My hon. Friend referred to the threat of droughts which are a particular danger to his region. We can also envisage threats to fresh water supplies and damaging impacts on agricultural production and the threat of the loss of bio-diversity.
Our response to all that must be based on a sound understanding of the underlying factors. I agree with the need for technical solutions to what is, at least in part, a technical problem. To that end, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister established the new Hadley centre for climate prediction and research, which will cost £6 million a year and will be open to participation by scientists from all countries.
Throughout the debate we have been driven by a belief that we cannot wait for conclusive scientific proof before

acting. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), who intervened effectively in the debate, about the need for the precautionary principle to be given effect. We must give the environment the benefit of the doubt particularly as much of the action that we take can be justified on other grounds. For example, energy efficiency is an entirely valid aim to pursue even in the absence of evidence of global warming.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) drew attention to the part played by CFCs. He will know that damage to the ozone layer is commonly confused with global warming. They are separate phenomena, but he was right to draw attention to the fact that there is a common link in that CFCs not only damage the ozone layer, but are potent greenhouse gases.
In the Montreal protocol of 1987, many nations committed themselves to reducing their use of CFCs by 50 per cent. by the year 2000. Just a few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment chaired a meeting of the protocol at which we were able to agree much stronger controls. The countries present committed themselves to a phase-out of CFCs and halons by the year 2000 and to implement tighter controls over two other ozone-depleting substances, methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride. We were also able to agree a financial mechanism to enable developing countries to meet their obligations under the protocol. That, in turn, meant that India and China were able to say that they hope to join the protocol.
The agreement is a significant watershed in environmental protection, but many countries, including this one, would like to go further on CFCs, and we are now pressing the European Community to phase out the use of CFCs in the Community, apart from certain essential uses, by the year 1997.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow drew attention to the Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte report. I am glad that it has his support. It was sponsored by my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry. It stresses the importance of finding substitutes and of recycling CFC gases. I was interested recently to open a CFC reclycing scheme in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire. The county council and the district councils had got together to fund a mobile CFC recycling unit which will extract those gases from domestic refrigerators.
Hon. Members have understandably and rightly drawn attention to the central role of energy efficiency. Nuclear power was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North. If the economics allow it, nuclear power has a part to play in future. As my hon. Friend knows, the generation of electricity by such means is done almost without gaseous emissions. He was right also to stress the potential role of combined heat and power. My Department certainly believes that, if the right applications can be found, there is a role for future CHP schemes. We are taking active steps to try to find appropriate applications.
We have already successfully promoted improvements in energy efficiency. Since 1979, we have produced 25 per cent. more gross domestic product with no increase in energy use.

Ms. Walley: I referred to the report that is due from working group 3 of the IPCC and suggested that it had been watered down. In view of what the Minister said


about energy efficiency, can he give an assurance that that report has not and will not be watered down and that there will be specific recommendations on energy efficiency?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We have not received the report from working group 3, so I cannot anticipate its outcome. However, if the hon. Lady is alleging that the Government have played any part in watering down that working group's research or possible conclusions, she is entirely wrong.
Last April, building regulations were altered to improve the heating efficiency of new homes by 20 per cent. The Electricity Act 1989 is also important in that the non-fossil fuel obligation has already given a tremendous boost to the commercial development of renewable energy. It is a sad fact that the Electricity Act was opposed at every stage by the official Opposition. I know that because I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: As we are discussing non-fossil fuels and nuclear power, was my hon. Friend surprised that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) did not develop her thoughts on nuclear power? The Opposition are in some difficulty on this matter.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is fair for my hon. Friend to make that comment. The Opposition have opposed nuclear power on principle far too often and they have overlooked the fact that, although all energy production systems have their disadvantages, nuclear power is a benign form of electricity generation in terms of the greenhouse effect and global warming.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow stressed the role of transport and he is right that vehicles are heavy producers of carbon dioxide. The three-way catalytic converter which will be compulsory on new vehicles from 1992 does nothing to limit the emisson of carbon dioxide. That is why we have been urging the European Commission to take further steps to introduce specific proposals to limit the emission of that gas. We have also urged discussions with motor manufacturers on how to ensure that we sustain previous improvements in vehicle efficiency. I hope that the European Commission will take heed of our promptings, as it is a cause of some concern that the fitting of three-way catalytic converters appears, at least in the short term, to rule out the development of lean-burn engines which hold out the prospect of limiting the emissions of other pollutant gases, while also reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
As I expected, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central spoke about the role of trees. He said that trees are an efficient and attractive way in which to fix carbon dioxide in solid form. My hon. Friend waxed lyrical and

talked about converting motorways into long, snaking arboretums. I shall certainly draw that proposal to the attention of the new Minister for Roads and Traffic, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope). My hon. Friend is right that we must find ways not only to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, but to get it back into solid form.
I am answering this debate leaning on a Dispatch Box that is partly made of wood. It rests on a solid wood table that is chiefly of carbon. Tree growth is a good way to reverse the overproduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Throughout the debate emphasis has been laid on international action, which I endorse. I agree that one of the strengths of the Council of Europe is that it includes eastern European countries which have a role in cleaning up the European environment. It is clear that 40 years of communism have also given us 40 years of environmental dereliction behind the iron curtain. For the continent to try to reverse that remains a giant task.
The United Kingdom has not been an obstacle to a European Community agreement, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) was dangerously near alleging. At the most recent discussion at the Environment Council on 7 June, this country pressed for an agreement that all member states should prepare national strategies setting out real measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We pressed that member states should be prepared to present those strategies at the next meeting of the Environment Council in October. Sadly, we were unable to reach agreement on that, but the fault does not lie with the Government. The plain fact is that some member states are not ready to take that step.
That applies to too many countries outside the developed world. Rather than squabbling about whether we should stabilise in 2000 or 2005, we should be trying to convince that part of the world—three quarters—that has not yet taken any action that it has a duty to join us in a concerted effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That is even more important.
There is no cause for complacency about global warming. It behoves all countries to participate, because it is a global problem requiring a global solution. Our duty is to increase our knowledge about the climate and about ways in which we can respond and to take necessary action in advance of conclusive proof.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having chosen global warming as the subject for this debate. His speech and those of other hon. Members have helped to illuminate the subject, which is complex at times. The obligation to join other countries in reducing emissions could be one of our most important international obligations and our debate this morning has contributed to the necessary understanding of the subject.

Council of Europe and CSCE

Mr. David Atkinson: Earlier this month, a meeting here in London of the heads of the NATO member states took stock of the historic changes that have taken place in central and eastern Europe. In its communique, it called for the establishment of structures which
would reflect and encourage a more united continent, supporting security and stability within the strength of a shared faith in democracy, the right of the individual, and the peaceful resolution of disputes.
The statement went on to advocate that the conference on security and co-operation in Europe the CSCE—should be developed as a contribution to Europe's future security. It proposed that the summit in Paris in November should decide how the CSCE can he institutionalised to provide a forum for wider dialogue in a more united Europe, including a parliamentary body to be known as the assembly of Europe.
In a reply to me on Thursday 12 July, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the details of this assembly are to be negotiated during the preparatory committee in the run-up to the summit. The purpose of this debate is to support the suggestion that the existing parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe is now, more than ever, the most appropriate body to become the new assembly of Europe.
It will be helpful to remind the House of the events that led to the historic and encouraging terms of the statement arising from the London NATO summit. In June last year, Poland held a general election. It was not a free election as we know it, as 65 per cent. of the seats of the lower house—the Sejm—were reserved for the communist Government coalition. But all the seats in the upper housemdash;the senate—were up for grabs, and 99 per cent. of them were won by Solidarity-sponsored non-communist candidates. It is little wonder, then, that President Jaruzelski was re-elected by just one vote after what was obviously a unique cliff-hanging experience for an eastern European communist leader. With hindsight, it is clear that he should have been counting himself fortunate, in view of the subsequent fate of all his fellow eastern European communist leaders. The last were President Ceausescu and his wife, and we all know what happened to them.
That election in Poland also led to the first non-communist Government in eastern Europe since the end of the second world war. It inspired a series of unpredictable events—symbolised perhaps most dramatically by the opening of the Berlin wall—which made last year the most significant of this century to date outside the war years. The consequences of 1989 will undoubtedly influence this entire decade and will continue to reverberate throughout the world—as they already have done in three countries that I have recently visited: Nicaragua, Namibia and Nepal. The map of Europe will be redrawn before the decade is out.
For the newly emerging democracies of central and eastern Europe, this already means some painful decisions and an equally painful period of readjustment from controlled economies to the free market. For the rest of us, it promises all the opportunities of a more stable world, more open markets and the peace dividend of disarmament. It also presents us with the greatest

challenge since the end of the last war—to establish the institution best suited to accommodate this new order in Europe and to resolve the problems—political, economic and security, outstanding and new—peacefully. The challenge, in short, is to build that common European home to which President Gorbachev so frequently refers, and the sort of united states of Europe originally envisaged by Winston Churchill. It is the establishment of that institution which has now been added to the agenda for the November summit, as well as the ratification of a united Germany and an agreement on conventional forces in Europe.
Despite the fact that it has been in existence for 15 years, the CSCE, or the Helsinki process as it is more often known, is not widely known, especially across the Atlantic; nor is the contribution that it has made to the democratisation of Europe greatly appreciated. Yet the process brings together representatives of the Governments of all but one of the 33 states of Europe, together with those of the United States and Canada. The remaining country, Albania, has indicated its desire to join in due course. So it will be not just the Europe of De Gaulle, from the Atlantic to the Urals, but the Europe dramatically described at the recent Copenhagen conference by the veteran former Czech dissident who became Foreign Secretary during the Prague spring, Jiri Hajek, as the Europe that extends from Alaska to Kamchatka. That it is now proposed to strengthen and institutionalise the process shows its acceptance by the participating Governments, not least the United States and the Soviet Union.
It is a process which works and, compared with the disappointments of its initial years, it has succeeded beyond all realistic expectations.
When the Helsinki Final Act was signed in 1975 it was regarded as a great triumph for Soviet diplomacy. For more than 20 years, the Soviet Union had been advocating a Europewide agreement to confirm the post-war boundaries decided in Yalta, to make internationally agreed arrangements to secure those frontiers, and to encourage western trade and technology. It was one of the high points of detente.
However, at the insistence of the western alliance, and very much to its credit, the Act was required to include an additional third dimension over and above confidence-building measures and commercial, scientific and cultural co-operation. It was a commitment by all parties to the Act to human rights and fundamental freedoms. the interpretation of which would be the subject of regular review. With hindsight it became clear that these additional commitments to human rights were tolerated by the communists of eastern Europe only because of the economic co-operation with the west that the Act promised. But for the captive peoples of eastern Europe they raised the hope and expectation that here was a new authority to which they could appeal over the heads of their own Governments. Helsinki monitoring groups were established. Tragically, they and the entire Helsinki process were soon to become victims of the cold war.
The first review conference, in Belgrade in 1977, was barren, but the excuse was that it was held too soon after Helsinki to expect progress to be made. By the time of the second review conference, in Madrid in 1980, it appeared that the principles of the Helsinki declaration had been abandoned. Afghanistan had just been invaded, the Moscow Olympics were to be subjected to boycott and


grain to the Soviet Union had been embargoed. Rearmament on both sides had already commenced and the Kremlin had activated its world peace movement to undermine NATO. Human rights dissidents in eastern Europe demanding the implementation of basket 3 were being locked up. In December 1981 the atmosphere in Madrid was further soured by the imposition of martial law in Poland.
The disappointment at the lack of progress led my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, then Foreign Secretary, to tell the 10th anniversary meeting of the signing of the Helsinki Final Act in Helsinki:
The Helsinki Act stands as a blueprint for the conduct of relations between nations and people. Yet so far we have scarcely begun to achieve even this objective … The tragic fact is that in some eastern states there has effectively been no movement at all on human rights.
However, St. George was already on the horizon. In March 1985 Mikhail Gorbachev became General Secretary of the Communist party of the Soviet Union. He was personally committed to reform as the only way for his country to achieve the economic strength with which one of his predecessors, Nikita Kruschev, boasted that he would bury the west.
Gorbachev was one of a generation of apparatchiks who entered service at the time of Kruschev's economic reforms. He saw them fail and saw the futility of intervention in Hungary and Czechoslovakia and of spending 25 per cent. of gross national product on defence. He saw the Kremlin run out of ideas and become moribund under Brezhnev with whom he saw the reforms of his mentor Andropov die.
The first fruit of the new situation arising from a Madrid proposal to convene a conference on confidence-building measures and disarmament in Europe, was the Stockholm document of 1986 which established for the first time the principle of challenge inspections as a kind of intrusive but reassuring verification. That development, together with the growing Soviet interest in conventional arms control, gave the third conference on security and co-operation in Europe in Vienna, beginning in November 1986, an encouraging start. It was agreed to replace the long-stalled mutual and balanced force reduction conventional arms control talks, independent of the CSCE, with a new set of talks under the CSCE. These were eventually to be the CFE—the conference on conventional forces in Europe.
The Vienna review conference concluded on 19 January last year with a document which considerably strengthened the human rights provision of the Act, which only Romania opposed. It established the mandates for two further sets of arms control negotiations and proposed a series of mini-conferences. They were a forum in London on information, a conference in Bonn on economic co-operation and a three-part conference in Paris, Copenhagen and Moscow on the human dimension. All but the Moscow conference have now taken place and they have all been regarded as successful. It is a measure of the reforms inspired by Gorbachev that even a majority of the human rights campaigners in the Soviet Union are now prepared for the 1991 conference to take place in Moscow, provided that the conditions on openness and access are met.
Today throughout Europe and, it is hoped, north America, the CSCE and the documentation and commitments that support it are genuinely regarded as the benchmark for the future by which to be judged a civilised member of the common European home. It was such a benchmark before the dramatic events of last year which led to the end of the ideological division of Europe. One can argue that the strengthened commitment to human rights, minority rights and the right to self-determination contained in the Vienna concluding document both sparked off and enabled the democratic revolution in central and eastern Europe to take place.
Credit must go to President Gorbachev for so courageously abandoning the lie of communism, and to those individual human rights campaigners such as Sakharov and Havel for equally courageously keeping the flame of freedom alive in their countries during the darkest days of their own persecution. Credit must also go to the Polish Pope whose election and triumphant return to his native country undoubtedly inspired the rise of Solidarity. But it should be said time and again, and should never be forgotten, that most of the credit must go to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and to President Reagan for standing firm in the defence of freedom, whatever the cost. That made the Kremlin realise that it could never compete with capitalism.
In whatever form the CSCE is to be strengthened and institutionalised, it is clear that it will face problems, many on a continental scale, which will require the good will and co-operation of all its members to resolve. It is as though the lifting of the iron curtain has opened a can of worms previously ignored in pursuit of winning the cold war. Democratisation of eastern and central Europe brings new problems by the day. The most immediate must be those arising from a united Germany: the eventual removal of the foreign troops of occupation; the confirmation of the Oder-Neisse line as the eastern border, which will undoubtedly disappoint the aspirations of the German minority in Silesia; and the growing wave of anti-semitism, most recently highlighted by Lord Jakobovits last week. History dictates that anti-semitism must never be ignored again. All those are Europe's problems, to be tackled by the CSCE.
The protection of minorities and the demands of nationalities will be the major issues facing Europe this decade. It is encouraging that last month's conference on the human dimension in Copenhagen introduced an outline charter of rights for national minorities, which constitute the major source of tension and terrorism in Europe today. In addition to minorities who are familiar to us in western Europe, for example, in Northern Ireland and northern Spain, we are becoming familiar with the problems of the Hungarian minorities in Romania, and the ethnic Turks in Bulgaria and with the growing list of demands to secede from the Soviet Union. Those are all legitimate issues for the CSCE.

Mr. Michael Lord: May I take my hon. Friend back to a remark that he made about President Gorbachev? Like my hon. Friend, I am a member of the Council of Europe. I believe very much in all that it has done and could do in the future. He will recall that President Gorbachev came to the Council of Europe to make his historical speech about the common European home. Does he agree that it sums up the way in which the Council of Europe works that in one year we


were addressed by a Polish Pope, by Lech Walesa, who was then leader of the oppressed Polish nation, and by President Gorbachev, who was then head of the nation which was oppressing the Polish people? I should like to think, and I hope that my hon. Friend will agree, that that was perhaps in no small way influential in events that have happened since.

Mr. Atkinson: As my hon. Friend will find out in the next minute or so, I intend to refer to some of those events. He rightly referred to the historic speech by President Gorbachev to the Council of Europe on 6 July last year in which he used, not for the first time, but most prominently, the phrase, "the common European home". His Foreign Secretary Eduard Shevardnadze has continually used that phrase in advocating that the Council of Europe should be the basis of the new proposed assembly of Europe, to which I shall refer later.
One of the major problems facing the strengthened CSCE this decade will be the final resolution of the consequences of the secret protocol of 1939. I refer to the right of self-determination of the Baltic states, the western Ukraine and Moldavia. Those are not matters for the Soviet Union alone to resolve. Although we in the west have taken an uncommitted line which seems, particularly to the Baits, contrary to the spirit of our refusal to recognise their enforced incorporation into the Soviet Union, ultimately, the clear demands of the Lithuanians, the Latvians and Estonians for the restoration of their independence, cannot be ignored by the rest of Europe.
If the negotiations with the Soviet Government that are about to commence fail, the newly strengthened CSCE will, if it chooses to ignore appeals from the Baltic states for self-determination, quickly become impotent—just as the League of Nations did over Ethiopia.
The problems created by the replacement of dictatorships by democracies and of centralised economies by the free market are also questions for the CSCE of the 35, not just for the Community of the Twelve. Baskets 2 and 3 clearly provide for that.
The new democracies seek our help and advice with the holding of free elections, the introduction of multiparty systems and parliamentary institutions, the establishment of a civil service to replace the nomenklatura, the rule of law, and the independence of the judiciary. They seek also our guidance on what we mean by human rights, the ending of subsidies, decontrol of prices, privatisation of industry, convertible currencies and technology transfer.
An enhanced CSCE could provide an umbrella of western help and expertise, including American technology and, with foresight, that of Japan. That could avoid stresses arising from competition for bilateral arrangements with any potentially damaging nationalist undertones.
We must also consider the immense Europeanwide problems of environmental pollution, many of which have arisen because of a complete lack of safety and control standards in the industries of the former centralised economies, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) referred in the previous debate.
Horrific problems remain following the Chernobyl disaster. Social problems such as drug addiction, crime, AIDS and poverty are common to every country, and should be the subject of co-ordinated action by all those within the CSCE.
In addition to common security, those are the issues that must be addressed by the Europe of the 1990s. I assume that they are very much in the minds of those advocating the development of the CSCE in the reconstruction of Europe. As they concern not just Governments or non-governmental organisations, but the citizens of every European country and of the United States of America and Canada, now must be the right time to introduce the democratic input that has so far been lacking, and which will make the CSCE more responsible to the people of Europe as represented by their Parliaments. That will be the aim of the new European assembly.
It may be said that the new European order will require a new institution uninhibited by the past, but that would be to ignore the experience and success of the four existing parliamentary assemblies, upon which it must be more sensible to build. Two of them are related to the defence of the west. They are the North Atlantic Assembly, representing the 16 member states of NATO, and the Western European Union, which represents the nine member states of the modified Brussels treaty—the European pillar of the Atlantic alliance.
It is clear from the summit that NATO will continue for the foreseeable future—certainly for as long as the Soviet Union remains the most powerful military force in Europe, and because considerable progress has yet to be made with arms control. Moreover, there may always be a role for such an alliance in responding to threats from, for example, the Mediterranean or the middle east.
In yesterday's summer Adjournment debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), suggested an enlarged WEU, to include other NATO states in association with the remaining non-WEU member states of the CSCE. Such a body could perhaps constitute the parliamentary assembly for the first basket of Helsinki in respect of defence and security.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate pointed out that under existing treaties, neither of the two other parliamentary assemblies—the European Parliament and the Council of Europe—are permitted to take account of those other interests. His was an interesting idea, and I hope that it will be considered. At first sight, the directly elected European Parliament might have the more attractive credentials for it to be considered as the basis for the future assembly of Europe.
It is clear that the Community will be the principal European source of economic aid and co-operation to foster the recovery and reorganisation of the economies of central and eastern Europe, through the new bank for reconstruction and development. It is clear that appropriate association, followed by full membership of the Community, is the ambition of all of the newly emerging democracies of central and eastern Europe, but it is also clear that it will not be achieved in the foreseeable future.
The natural evolution of the European Free Trade Association member states to join the Community, following the formation of the European economic space that is currently being negotiated, will occur, but it is also clear that full economic and monetary union remains the Community's current priority with whatever is decided about political union, if it is decided at all, to follow, in which case there would be no room for the rest of Europe for the time being.
Whereas conventional wisdom a few years ago was that the Community and the European Parliament would overtake the Council of Europe in membership and responsibilities, today, the Council of Europe is accepted as the most appropriate, practical and credible institution for the single democratic space under the CSCE. That conclusion can be drawn on three grounds: its record of performance on baskets 2 and 3; the breakthrough that is being made in becoming representative of the emerging democracies; and the fact that it is already preparing the foundations for the missing parliamentary dimension for the CSCE, in a way that the European Parliament is not and cannot.
The Council's commitment to pluralist parliamentary democracy, the rule of law and human rights, which are the qualifications for full membership, represent the highest standards, based on long and proud experience. It inspires local government with these standards, through its standing conference of local and regional authorities in Europe. There has never been any suggestion of compromise on the qualifications for membership, as was demonstrated when the colonels seized power in Greece, and its membership of the Council of Europe was removed. Nor will there be for the newly emerging democracies that wish to join.
The convention of the Council of Europe on human rights, with its unique right of individual petition to the court for every citizen, and numerous other conventions, such as those on culture, the suppression of terrorism, transfrontier co-operation, animal welfare and the protection of wildlife, inspired and defined by the parliamentarians, form the basis of a truly European system of legislation. Many conventions have emerged as a result of public opinion, from the grassroots of Europe.
The competence of the Council of Europe on so many of the problems facing Europe today has been proved time and again by the succession of committee reports, with recommendations for policies to be adopted by member Governments on the approval of its Committee of Ministers. It is a formula which can equally apply to an assembly of Europe under the CSCE.
As the parliamentary forum for the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development, which was originally inspired by the Marshall plan, the Council of Europe demonstrates its wide competence on economic and social policy, energy, development co-operation, international trade and much else besides, in its annual debate which includes parliamentarians from five other countries which are not members: Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the USA. It is no wonder that every European non-member state, except Albania, has expressed a wish to become associated with the Council of Europe.
With great foresight, a new special guest status, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Poole referred earlier, was created last year for the parliaments of Hungary, Poland, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, which have committed themselves to reform. Very soon, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and perhaps Romania may be added. Full membership will follow as soon as they demonstrate that they qualify. Observers from the Council of Europe have followed all their recent elections.
What is happening in the Council of Europe today is the emergence of a confederated framework for the whole of Europe that threatens no one's sovereignty and lowers no democratic standards. It has a complete intergovernmental structure that can adapt its mechanisms to embrace all 35 states of the CSCE. By proposing a new associate status, with full voting rights, in its annual debate on the CSCE, the Council of Europe is already preparing for its rightful role as the CSCE's parliamentary dimension.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister and apologise to him for having brought him here so early this morning to reply to the debate. I hope that I have demonstrated to him that those who are preparing for the November summit need look no further than the Council of Europe, with its total interest in and commitment to the Helsinki process and the flexibility that it is now demonstrating to take account of the new order in Europe, as the basis for the new assembly of Europe.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will find attractive one final argument in its favour. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central will bear me out. The British delegation has always been—and most certainly is today, ably led as it is by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg)—one of the most productive and influential of the 23 delegations. I assure my right hon. Friend that those of us who are privileged to be members of it will continue to pursue the consensus, without the need for international laws or intervention, that has made the CSCE the undoubted success that it has been, in the new assembly of Europe.

Mr. George Robertson: It is customary in these debates to congratulate the hon. Member who has been fortunate enough to secure the debate. My congratulations are slightly equivocal. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) spoke with eloquence and conviction. It has been an admirable opportunity for him to put forward his point of view and for the rest of us to comment on it and the serious issues involved. However, I wonder whether it makes common sense for the Parliament of the United Kingdom to sit throughout the night. Adult, mature men and women are debating matters of great consequence, with all the fatigue involved in sitting throughout the night. It is absurd and beyond all reason that the House should conduct its business in this way.
Quite apart from the inefficiency involved in debating these matters throughout the night, one has to consider the cost of doing so. I wonder at the expense each of our speeches will involve because of the vast number of people who are engaged in keeping the Palace of Westminster open while we deliberate. We ought to conduct our business in a better way. It does neither the House of Commons nor Parliament any good. The fact that we conduct our business in this way is a cause of derision. I hope that we shall make changes in our procedures so that matters of this importance are dealt with in a more appropriate fashion.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East was right, having declared an interest as a member of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe, to argue that that assembly should form the basis for the proposed assembly of Europe, when the CSCE meets next November in Paris. That may appeal to a larger


constituency than the small, elite number who are here at 6·58 am—not least because of the fact that it would be a cost-saving exercise.
I was interested in a number of the hon. Gentleman's points. For a number of years he and I have been interested in the question of human rights in eastern Europe. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct to pay tribute to Mr. Gorbachev, whose courage and vision have led to many of the changes that have radically altered the continent that we live in. He is also right to underline the role of those who campaigned for human rights for so many bleak years. They did not do so with the comfort and ease that we have, even though we have to endure middle-of-the-night debates. They lost their livelihoods and their lives in the campaign to produce what, in many parts of central and eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union, is now almost taken for granted.
A few years ago when the hon. Gentleman and I campaigned for the release of the Siberian seven in the American embassy in Moscow we would have treated with scepticism, if not incredulity, the idea that in a few years' time, not only would the Siberian seven be out, but demonstrations in the streets of Moscow would be regarded as the norm, rather than an amazing exception.
I parted company with the hon. Gentleman when he paid a magnanimous tribute to the Prime Minister for her role in those events. I concede that she played her part in the early stages of the process of change in Europe, perhaps by persuading President Reagan that there was a small niche in history available for him if he recognised that there was a wind of change, especially in the Soviet Union. But her influence in the latter stages has not been positive; in the past few months, at the NATO summit and elsewhere, it has been positively negative in its impact.
The world, and especially the continent of Europe, is currently faced with major challenges in moving towards tackling the structures that will take us beyond the blocs and the cold war. The transition from two frozen blocs to a more flexible, reasonable and co-operative structure in Europe is the challenge posed to all of us, whether in government or out of government. The consensual approach of the hon. Gentleman's speech was welcome as we all agree about the diagnosis and, in many ways, the prescription. The transition is all-important, so we must look at what institutions exist at present and, if necessary, build on them before we start looking to the creation of brand-new institutions for the future.
Our first object for the future must be to absorb the former Warsaw pact countries which sit in a limbo between NATO and the Soviet Union and have every right to be considered on their own merits, not simply as former communist satellites. Many of those countries are not just ex-communist countries, but anti-communist countries. One of today's ironies is that, with the exception of Turkey, the only Communist parties in existence in Europe are in the NATO countries; there are none left in the former Warsaw pact countries. Those former communist countries must be absorbed in a system where they will feel comforted and reassured.
Secondly, our objective must be to reassure the Soviet Union, which is going through a massive transformation in terms of both attitudes and its economy. Vast numbers of its troops and officers are being redeployed back within their own boundaries, virtually as refugees. Although the Soviet Union is magnanimous about the changes over

which it has supervised, it is still twitchy and nervous about the way in which those changes have come so far and so fast.
Thirdly, Europe's objective must be to continue to involve the United States of America in its affairs in the longer term. Some people will wonder why we should involve the United States at this juncture and why it should have a role in Europe. That debate will embrace the United States of America as well as those of us in Europe.
There are several reasons why the Americans should remain involved in Europe and why it is in Europe's interest for them to do so. First, it is necessary that we maintain a European voice in the super-power dialogue and prevent any inclination to deals being done between the United States and Soviet Union. There is already a sign that President Bush is willing to do those deals with President Gorbachev because they are in the mutual interests of the super-powers. It is important that Europe retains a strong voice in that discussion, because the outcome of those debates and discussions is crucial.
Secondly, the two super-powers remain the major nuclear powers in the world. It is right that Europe should continue to have a voice in that nuclear component, because, although it is reduced in its impact, it still has a vital role to play in our survival.
Thirdly, our trading relations with America continue to be fragile and difficult, and at the Houston summit we saw that our trading relationship has not always been easy and may not necessarily be so in the future. A strategic relationship between Europe and the Americans is a mechanism by which we can continue to discuss trade as partners and not necessarily as adversaries.
Fourthly, for the foreseeable future we should continue to have input into American foreign policy, which will continue to be the most important foreign policy in the world. In the past, Europe's influence has been for the good, and we should hope to continue that into the future.
Those four reasons alone are good reasons why the Americans should continue to remain as players within Europe, but at a recent conference where several Soviet observers were present, one of the members said, "I would like to add a fifth reason to Mr. Robertson's four reasons—because the Soviet Union want the Americans still to play a part in Europe as well." That is becoming all the more apparent.
Those are selfish reasons why the Americans should stay in Europe, but there are major reasons why, for American purposes, they should continue to do so. The principal reason is that since the second world war the potential for problems and for trouble in Europe, especially trouble that could spill into the global environment, has remained in the European continent, and keeping plugged into that is all-important. In the relationship between the super-powers, Europe remains the main focus of activity. Congress representatives should bear that in mind as they go through the difficult decisions that they will have to take in the near future on their relationship at a global level and their participation within the European continent.
In the context of those objectives, the CSCE has an essential role to play. It alone of all the institutions that have been created—it is a pretty fragile institution; as one of my colleagues said recently, it has not even a telephone number—has a genuine track record of achievement between east and west. As the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East made plain, the Helsinki Final Act


was an achievement in one of the worst periods of the cold war because it moved dialogue and debate on to more sensible subjects.
The CSCE has a role in conflict containment—we may as well face up to the fact that tensions within Europe may lead to conflict—and in testing new structures which we hope will be imaginatively produced for the future, given the nature of the goodwill that is emanating from east and west in Europe.
In the short term, NATO will continue to exist. It has a major role to play and is an organisation of some substance. The London declaration showed that it is capable of adapting to a new and changing military relationship in Europe. Because it is a robust body, it must form the foundation of the new relationship within Europe. The CSCE has the major role to play in bridging the divide between the Soviet Union and the NATO countries and linking the countries in the middle that do not subscribe to the views of either.
I join in the note of optimism struck by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East. The changes in the past year go beyond what many of us involved would have predicted. They have thrown up difficulties. Sometimes we become obsessed with those difficulties rather than recognising the achievements. There is still a considerable case for optimism. If politicians in the east and west are willing to recognise the power of those changes, to consolidate that optimism and to look at the organisations that we already have, a bright future is available for our generation and future generations.
It is important to build on our achievements. A powerful contribution has been made in this debate. I look forward to continuing the debate at a more appropriate time, because Parliament has a vital contribution to make.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. William Waldegrave): The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) commented on the eccentricity of our proceedings—a point on which anyone who, like me, proceeds about his day's business from this place to a Department will sympathise. Nothing in what the hon. Gentleman said should detract from the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), made an excellent speech. He gave the history of the CSCE, which, although it was not heard by the audience that it deserved, will read well. It will be a useful contribution to the continuing debates on these subjects. So complete was that telling of history that I shall not attempt to add to it.
I agree that what in retrospect, in a childish way, the Soviet Union thought was a great diplomatic triumph turned out to be one of the most curious manoeuvres in terms of the long-term moves of the old Stalinists. It gave both sides of the House and people throughout the free world the right to monitor human rights in the Soviet Union. Hundreds of thousands of people have been the beneficiaries. I do not think that Mr. Brezhnev and his colleagues originally expected that to happen.
The most noted group consisted of the Soviet Jews, whose rights to emigrate are now more or less established. Many other individuals and categories have benefited

from the standing ground that was provided and from what my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East described as basket 3 of the CSCE. We are all able to monitor human rights in the Soviet bloc. The CSCE gave a standing ground for the monitoring groups—often consisting of very brave people—within those countries to work with us and to establish something like a rule of law throughout the 35 countries. My hon. Friend mentioned some of the great heroes, whose names have become famous. He was right to say that the standing ground provided by the CSCE enabled them to have a legitimate stage on which to play.
The CSCE is a remarkable institution, in that it has shown itself to be capable not only of carrying out its original tasks but of developing. It is no accident that it is now central to the discussions about how to transform relations between the former blocs in the next period. It is, after all, the only organisation—apart from the United Nations itself—that contains all the principal players: above all, it contains the United States and Canada, as well as the Soviet Union and the countries of Europe proper.
It is no surprise, therefore, that the next steps have been taken within the focus of the CSCE. I commend to hon. Members the two declarations to which my hon. Friend referred, which have followed from the last two CSCE specialist meetings. At the Bonn economic meeting, for the first time, we encountered a commitment—running through all the countries involved—to pluralist economics and the place of the market in economics. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hamilton welcomes that, as it enables him to explain to some on the left of his party that their aspirations—always futile—would now probably cause Britain to have to retire from the CSCE, as Romania used to.
Taken together with the human rights, rule of law and democracy conclusions of the Copenhagen meeting, the Bonn meeting provides what most of us would describe as an agenda for civilised and free societies. Certainly it provides clear conditions for membership of the club, and that—as the hon. Member for Hamilton pointed out—is one of the values of the whole exercise: it provides a background against which we can make rational and sensible decisions about, for example, economic aid and contacts.
The whole merit of the CSCE process is that it has not been a formal legal process; it has been consensual, and it has had political force behind it. In a sense, the weapon used to exert pressure has been shame: if countries did not—could not—meet their obligations, they were in the dock, and had to face their own inability, at subsequent meetings, to justify their behaviour.
The Council of Europe—of whose parliamentary assembly my hon. Friend is a distinguished member—proceeded by means of almost exactly the opposite method. When the European convention on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms was established—I am proud to say that the United Kingdom was a founder member, ratifying it on 8 May 1951—it laid down something much more closely binding. It was a real convention. As my hon. Friend rightly said, if a country failed to maintain its standards it was expelled—and there have been instances. The convention has also played an extremely honourable and important role in the maintenance of human rights throughout our membership of the Council of Europe.
Given that, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the NATO countries now propose the addition of a democratic element to the CSCE process, how are the various strands to be brought together? We welcomed the suggestion in the London NATO declaration, which my hon. Friend mentioned—it has not yet been finalised, but it is none the less a useful suggestion—that the CSCE parliamentary body which is now proposed, to be called the assembly of Europe, should be based on the existing parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg; including, of course, additional members to cover the CSCE member states.
My belief—I think that my hon. Friend will share my view—is that it is unlikely that all the members of the CSCE 35 could join the Council of Europe. There are several reasons for that. The word "Europe" is beginning to become more a term of social significance than geographical significance because already the common European home includes large areas that we used to call America or Asia. There are also constitutional difficulties for some countries, perhaps above all for the United States. I do not believe that the United States Congress would ever consign the degree of external control that would be implied by signing the European convention on human rights in addition to the United States constitution. I may be wrong, but I think that that is unlikely.
Equally—we hope this will change in the decades ahead—I do not think that anyone would argue that the Soviet Union yet meets the criteria for joining, although, in some respects, it is moving in that direction. It may, as in the cultural convention, have a role to play. That is now under discussion. As the hon. Member for Hamilton said, unless the criteria were watered down, which would vitiate the purpose of the enterprise, I do not think that the Soviet Union could join ahead of the completion of the crucial business of its reassurance, involvement and integration in the wider world.
How do we bring the two together? There is a precedent in the way in which the assembly of the Council of Europe deals with the affairs of the OECD. As I understand it, additional members are invited to attend from the countries not covered by the Council of Europe but represented in the OECD. That is not an exact analogy, but it provides a basis for saying that there is nothing inherently impossible about using the Council of Europe structure, with additional members, to provide the necessary parliamentary assembly for the CSCE process.
That must all be worked out in detail by the membership, but we think that the suggestion in the London NATO declaration was useful and should be followed up. The two bodies could be brought into beneficial contact.
The potential for conflict and competition was noticeable to me at the Lisbon meeting, which I had the privilege to attend. It was the first meeting to which eastern European members were invited. There was a certain amount of competition in the corridors and a certain nervousness that somehow there would be institutional conflict. It was also noticeable at the European Parliament where we heard a speech which mapped out a competitive role. That is unnecessary. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East said, that body, with its separate purpose, is not the right one in which to carry out the wider task. The Council of Europe is much more in the target area. As my hon. Friend said, it is already playing an integrative role in relation to the eastern and central

European countries that are well on the way to meeting the full criteria for membership. That is the right way to bring them back into the mainstream of Europe, or, as my hon. Friend said, the confederation of a democratic and law-based Europe.
If we can use the prestige and experience of that assembly to provide the necessary democratic input into the CSCE, it would be economical financially and in terms of using experience and expertise in the management of such assemblies. That is a good suggestion and it will be followed up in the period ahead.
The hon. Member for Hamilton ranged wider than my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East in an interesting and positive speech about the way in which the CSCE reinforces the steps that we must take to reassure and integrate the Soviet Union and how the CSCE provides another forum in which the role of the United States in relation to wider European policy can be formally reinforced.
It was useful of the hon. Member for Hamilton to list the reasons why we need the United States in Europe. That is not a universal view on the Labour Benches, but it is a view which is becoming more widespread on the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Robertson: It is a unanimous view at the moment.

Mr. Waldegrave: That is perfectly true. It would benefit Labour policy if that policy were made in the way in which the hon. Member for Hamilton has made it today. He should make it alone. That would be very productive. However, it must mildly irritate the United States to have to listen to a steady stream of insults from the left of the Labour party while the leaders say the opposite.
The hon. Member for Hamilton was right to state that it is not simply our interests that are important. I believe that President Bush told President Mitterrand that the Americans must not sound like mercenaries for Europe because Europe will not spend enough on its own defence. That would be an unsustainable position in Congress.
We must show why it is in the interests of the United States that they should remain involved. That is certainly in our interests and that means giving the United States a reasonable say in the consultations and decision making in Europe. It involves reminding the Americans, if they need reminding, that they have enormous interests at stake in the maintenance of a stable Europe not just in commercial, industrial and investment terms, but in terms of the stability of the world's trading system of which the Americans are such an important part.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East has made a timely contribution to a wider debate about how to carry forward the rather extraordinary achievement of the CSCE. No one would have predicted in the early days that it would turn out to be the success that it has. The Brezhnevite people in the Soviet Union thought that it was a way of establishing the boundaries that Stalin had imposed on Europe. In fact, it has turned out to he one of the principal motors for dismantling the empire that Stalin created by force in eastern and central Europe. It leaves a procedure, by agreement and consent of course, for the alteration of those boundaries and it will be interesting to see whether that is ever taken up.
The CSCE has also become a principal motor for the protection of human rights. It is now the right forum and it needs to be institutionalised somewhat without going


overboard with the creation of new structures. It should be institutionalised on the official side. The British Government have made several suggestions, including, for example, the establishment of a centre for the avoidance of conflict, and other suggestions will be discussed at the CSCE summit. I hope that that will produce a not too bureaucratic structure and an identity for the CSCE process. We cannot continue to call it a process for ever. It must become a natural organisation established somewhere.
As that organisation is established it will need a democratic forum to which to report and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East made practical suggestions about how that might be carried forward on the basis of a wider membership, for that purpose, of the Council of Europe assembly of which he is such a distinguished member.

Latin America

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Before referring to the subject of the debate, I should like to record my appreciation of the presence of the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). As we know from today's announcements, he is to move on to pastures new. Nevertheless, I very much appreciate his courtesy in being here to reply to the debate. Hon. Members certainly look forward to the interest that will be shown in Latin America by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), who I believe will take over the onerous responsibilities of our relations with Latin America, and we wish him well.
I do not know whether it would be appropriate to refer to the debate as the Latin American swansong of the Minister, but we hope that his experiences with Latin America, combined with his duties at the Department of Trade and Industry, will strengthen our trade relations with Latin America, which is one of the objectives of the debate.
This is the third debate on Latin America in as many years. It could not be more opportune. If the 1980s were a decade of stagnation for Latin America, the prospects are that the 1990s will be the decade of opportunity. Almost all the countries of Latin America have emerged into democracy, and almost all of them are struggling towards a free economy. They are facing the hard realities of a new world in which the big power blocs are breaking up, and they are determined to help themselves and progress towards the future on the basis of their own efforts.
The only fear among Latin Americans is of a fortress Europe coming about in 1992 excluding them from powerful economic relations with their spiritual home and, in turn, forcing them into the embrace of Uncle Sam, whom they have traditionally suspected.
This country certainly has a distinctive image in its deliberations with our fellow members of the European Community. We in Britain stand for the open market and free trade, and against corporatism and protectionism in the new Europe. We are not in the habit of subordinating ourselves to the current fashion of blind Euro-enthusiasm. That British approach will no doubt be of benefit to Euro-deliberations, but it can also be a rallying point for our Latin American friends. This country could once again act as Latin America's champion in Europe. Latin American countries would welcome us in such a role, for it would not be the first time that we have acted in that way.
In this very House the Foreign Secretary of the day, George Canning, put the stamp of approval and respectability in Europe on the independence of the Latin American states. In his famous words, he
called the New World into existence, to redress the balance of the Old.
It is not for nothing that we are seeing more Latin American visitors in London than we have for many years. Those visitors have been received by Government, by this Parliament and, incidentally, by Canning house, the centre for Latin American relations in London. Over the past few months we have seen in London the presidents of Mexico and Colombia, the newly elected president of Brazil, the Finance Minister of Chile, the Economics Minister of


Brazil, the Foreign Ministers of Colombia and Venezuela, and, of great value in this place, parliamentary delegations from Argentina, Chile and Nicaragua. We have in London a more personally distinguished and powerful group of Latin Amerian ambassadors than in almost any other capital of the world. All the people of Latin America look to us as a vibrant economy, the home of "El Thatcherismo" and the inspiration to their new economic policies and restored democracies. Can we be their Euro-champions? Can we do it? Above all, will we do it?
Despite a marked improvement in Britain's trade with Latin America, we still have a long way to go. Too many British business men still regard Latin America as an uncomfortable, hot place run by Caudillos, saddled with debt, not paying their bills, destroying their forests and growing and peddling drugs. That caricature was never accurate. Today it is misleading, and we should all be wise to look at the changes that are occurring in Latin America.
I hope that more official visits will be paid to Latin America. Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales are due to visit Brazil in the autumn. More royal, Government and parliamentary visits should be paid to that continent. It would be most valuable if the Minister were able to convince my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to visit. A visit to the newly democratic Governments of Brazil and Chile and to Colombia and Venezuela would make a great impact and would be a great example which would considerably benefit Britain.
We are all obsessed by the changes in eastern Europe, but the changes in Latin America are no less profound. Democracy has broken out with a vengeance in the continent as country after country has reverted to its democratic base. In Chile the military dictatorship has been consigned to the history book—an aberration in Chile's long democratic history. The newly elected President Aylwin, who is of British descent, was elected from the united opposition in Chile. He is getting on with the job of safeguarding the country's impressive economy and is in the process of taking that country forward.
In Brazil, the largest Latin American country by far, there has also been a reversion to democracy. President Fernando Collor De Mello has set in train the most remarkable set of policies. He has launched a radical economic stabilisation plan involving the elimination of the Government deficit of 8 per cent. of GDP. He plans to turn that deficit into a surplus. He has sacked more than 100,000 public employees and has closed ministries. He has frozen the bank balances of the middle classes and has carried out a privatisation programme that would make Conservative Members blush with embarrassment. All the signs are that Brazil will break through to become a far more powerful economy in the future, following the stagnation that it suffered in the 1980s.
In Mexico President Gortari, who visited the House in the past year, is reforming the very system that put him into office. Since almost time immemorial, the PRI—the governing party—has arranged its electoral victories. With echoes of Gorbachev, President Gortari is opening up the democratic process. He is also tearing down the state sector and opening up the Mexican economy to the world market. Elsewhere in Latin America, Presidents Menem of Argentina and Carlos Andres Perez of Venezuela have turned towards realistic reforms, to the consternation of their traditional supporters.
In Bolivia, President Paz is transforming his country's economy and President Lacalle of Uruguay is following

the same path. In Peru everyone awaits the proposals of the newly elected President Fujimori, the first Latin American president of Japanese descent.
Only in Nicaragua, Haiti and Cuba is democracy in question. The House will recall the astounding elections in Nicaragua in February when the Nicaraguan people, watched by international observers—including hon. Members of this House, who showed that the elections were free—cast aside their fears and voted in Violeta Chamorro. The new president has followed radical policies, in common with so many newly elected Latin American presidents. President Chamorro undertakes that task, however, with a civil service, education system and army overwhelmingly staffed by Sandinista predecessors.
The shock of electoral defeat was so great at the time that the Sandinistas acquiesced to the will of the Nicaraguan people. Now, however, they are trying to give effect to Daniel Ortega's call for government from below. That obstruction by the Sandinistas could ruin Nicaragua's progress. The recent Sandinista-inspired strikes and disorder caused chaos despite the lack of widespread support. That does not augur well for the future of that country.
Haiti is promised new elections by its newly appointed president, Madame Pascal-Trouillot. It remains to be seen whether that Duvalier-infested republic will achieve free elections.
Only one country in Latin America remains to go democratic. The only Latin American republic worthy of the Bourbons is Cuba. Fidel Castro is still making his five-hour speeches—the only true Marxist believer left outside Albania. There is no democracy there. His rule has rested on the twin bases of ideology and Soviet subsidy. The one is bankrupt and the other is insolvent. Time is running out for Fidel. A coup d'etat from within his own regime is on the cards, and that might lead to the establishment of a Government who will come to terms with their neighbours in both Americas. Perhaps with that will come free elections for the long-suffering Cuban people.
Not only has Latin America changed politically; it has changed economically. "El Thatcherismo" is in All Governments are cutting deficits and inflation, dismantling state structures, privatising, raising the quality of the investment climate and opening up to overseas trade. The once fashionable import substitution model of development has been relegated as a failure. That provides opportunities for us. British business men should grasp those opportunities and the Government should review the Export Credits Guarantee Department policy to keep up with them.
The investment climate has also changed. The need to attract new inflows has changed the Latin American attitude to foreign capital. The new enthusiasm for privatisation may provide opportunities for debt conversion and certainly provides scope for privatisation expertise, in which this country is a world leader.
Unlike eastern Europe, Latin America has a cadre of economic leadership experienced in running large free enterprises in capitalist economies. We have many potential partners in Latin America for interesting new ventures. British industry should get up and go to look at Latin America and look to the opportunities for the future.
In summary, the continent of manana is fast becoming the continent of hoy—the continent of today. We could


ensure our participation in that surge of activity if we grasped the new opportunities. I hope very much that this debate will encourage that process.

Mr. Ray Whitney: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) on succeeding in launching another Latin American debate. As he says, this is the third in three years. The debate is becoming an annual fixture, which is of great importance to those of us who are enthusiastic in spreading the message in the House and in Britain about the importance of Latin America to Britain and to the European Community. Our previous two debates have inspired a surprising—I would say, a flattering—resonance and reaction in Latin American countries.
We should ensure that none of us in Britain overlooks the exciting things that have happened in Latin America. As my hon. Friend said, it is too easy to allow those developments to be overshadowed by what has been happening in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, welcome though those developments are. We should be seen to take Latin America considerably more seriously than we do.
There is quite a lot of knowledge of our historical links and our traditional connections with Latin American countries; there is rather less knowledge of the developments that have been taking place in the past year or two and the cascade of democracies that that continent has witnessed. I understand that in the past 18 months, about 18 democratic elections have been held and in 14 of those, the opposition parties have ascended into power. These democratic Governments have inherited a serious raft of problems from the authoritarian regimes that they have succeeded. They face a legacy of protectionism and import substitution; of massive bureaucracies that overhang their economies; of the debt problem; and of the propensity to print money and the huge inflation attendant on that in nearly all Latin American countries.
These democratic regimes face hard decisions. The extraordinary thing is that they are taking those decisions; from Mexico to Argentina, almost all the Governments of the continent are facing up to what is required and putting into action a series of measures which my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham described as "Thatcherismo". I saw the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) smile somewhat wryly at that description; he may find it difficult to accept, but it happens to be true. As so many Latin American visitors to this country have attested, their interest in what has been achieved here is profound.
There have been enormous and surprising privatisation measures. For instance, the Argentines have privatised their airline and telephone systems. The same is happening in Brazil and other countries. The free market is believed in and is being established. Sound money is being introduced. The role of the state is being diminished.
The process, however, arouses political tensions, and the courage of the democratically elected leaders in Latin America is not sufficiently appreciated in the Chamber or the country. I heartily endorse the proposal that more visits should be made to Latin America by members of the Government, including, I hope, by my right hon. Friend

the Prime Minister. That would act as a symbol of our understanding of what has been achieved and of the continent's prospects.
As the House will have gathered, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham and I think similarly on these issues. I share his anxiety about Nicaragua. The remarkable victory for democracy in February's elections is under threat. I visited that country three years ago, and I said at the time and again subsequently that I did not find it surprising that the Nicaraguan people, given the chance, would throw off the yoke of Sandinismo. It came as a surprise to most Opposition Members, however. Most of them had not been there, and those who had allowed themselves to be led by the nose by the Sandinistas. The most obvious example of that was the wife of the Leader of the Opposition, who returned demanding that the outcome of the elections should be respected. Like other members of the Labour party she was discomfited to learn at the elections that the people of the country wanted not Marxism or socialism or Sandinismo but freedom and democracy—and that is what they have, but, sad to say, the events of the first two weeks of this month have left those assets under threat.
I hope that the Sandinistas and the people of Nicaragua will understand that we in Europe are watching developments there with the greatest attention. Last week we were delighted to welcome many Nicaraguan parliamentarians who were clearly deeply commited to the principles of constitutional, democratic government that we enjoy here. They want to root them ever more deeply in their country, and we have a duty to do whatever we can to help them achieve that aspiration.
Most of the new democracies in Latin America face many difficulties. Latin American history has had many false dawns, but this time the strong probability is that democracy will succeed. All the many efforts at regional co-operation have run into the sand, but this time there is every prospect that people will work together, inspired by what has been achieved in Europe. In that context I disagree with some of the implied strictures of the European Community offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham. However, I heartily agree that one of Britain's major roles is to ensure that the Community continues to develop as an outward looking entity, seeking co-operation with the rest of the world. Fortress Europe is a myth propagated by the Community's opponents.
We have paid insufficient attention to the initiative "Enterprise for the Americas" launched by President Bush on 28 June. The long-term goal of President Bush and the United States is that there
would be a time when all are equal partners in a free trade zone stretching from the port of Anchorage to Tierra del Fuego.
That objective may be achieved and the Community should take full notice of it. The trade role of Britain and western Europe in Latin America has been declining. Over the past 20 years that trade has dropped to about 15 per cent. of all Latin American trade and that is less than half of what it was two decades ago.
Latin America has great potential. It has little-tapped natural resources and a population of about 400 million. Already its gross domestic product is about two thirds that of the combined GDP of the Soviet Union and eastern Europe.
It presents a great challenge which all nations, and especially the United Kingdom, must meet. The United Kingdom took a major step this year in its relations with Latin America. Our traditional problem has been with Argentina over the Falkland Islands. The House should take happy note that a few days ago Humphrey Maude presented his credentials as our newly appointed ambassador in Buenos Aires. We have been happy to welcome the distinguished new ambassador of Argentina to the Court of St. James. He is Dr. Mario Campora who, by the eminence of his person, is endowed with deep trust by the President of Argentina. That is a mark of the attention that Argentina clearly gives to the improvement of relations with Britain.
I pay tribute to the device, the so-called umbrella, which enables us to put to one side the vexed and for the moment insoluble issue of the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. This gives us another opportunity to develop further our traditional links and relationships not only with Argentina, but with Latin America as a whole.
Those of us who are enthusiastic about Argentina have heard and made the cry many times that we must not allow exciting developments in eastern Europe to obscure the equally exciting developments in Latin America and the opportunities that they present. This time that cry is urgent and pressing. My final plea—though this is not the first time that I have made it is that the teaching of Spanish in our schools must be rapidly and significantly increased. It is a fascinating, attractive and easy language and is spoken in 20 countries. Any business man, scholar or young person with English and Spanish at his disposal has access to about two thirds of the world's people. That must be a wonderful achievement. It would be a tremendous boost to our export efforts. In that regard, I hope that as well as developing high-level visits to Latin America, the Government will respond to the pleas that we have made.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) both on his presence here today and on his elevation a few hours ago. I wish him all good fortune in the Department of Trade and Industry. I hope that from that position he will be able to lend yet more weight to efforts to increase our trade in Latin America.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: I seek the leave of the House to speak briefly. I shall take no more than two minutes, if that is in order. I should like to mention three factors: aid, debt and environment. They come together in Amazonas, in the tropics and in the Andes.
In Brazil, the felling of part of the tropical rain forest has caused a storm of consternation among environmentalists. We have to be careful about what we say to Brazil. It is a friendly country and it would rightly resent any effort on our part to muscle in and tell it what it may or may not do with its territory. Nevertheless, it is important that we come to some sort of accommodation with it.
Moving across the continent to the Andes, I wish to say a few words about Peru. The other day I was sent a copy of that well-known property paper Estates Gazette. Attached to the front of it was a diez intis note of the Banco Central de Reserva del Peru. How disgraceful that a country's currency should be used for the purposes of advertisement.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to bear it in mind that some countries in Latin America struggle under a great mountain of debt. Those countries will find it much easier to rise again and promote a democratic way of life if they can see an end to the mountain of debt—if they can see light at the end of the tunnel. I do not imply that we should necessarily relieve them of their debt, but we should reschedule it in such a way that they feel more able to cope with it.

Mr. George Robertson: I, too, must ask the leave of the House to speak. If the leave of the House is contested there may be no one happier than myself. In view of the acute interest in the middle of the night in foreign affairs, clearly the resources of both Front-Bench Members have been stretched to breaking point.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) did so earlier, but I also congratulate the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) on his promotion from the Foreign Office into the depths of the Department of Trade and Industry. I am sure that he will inculcate an element of common sense into a Department which has sadly lacked that commodity for some time.
It is a matter of some regret that the Foreign Office team changes with such rapidity, leaving a consistent, well-tried and experienced team on the Opposition Front Bench. Clearly it is part of the Prime Minister's "change and destabilise" policy for the Foreign Office and its influence. However, the hon. Member for Hove goes to his new Department with our best wishes. We look forward to breaking in yet another team of Foreign Office Ministers.
The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) introduced a serious and important subject for debate, albeit late in our proceedings, and made a number of valid points. Yesterday, the Financial Times published an interesting and significant article, which began:
Latin American leaders have been watching the fast-moving changes in the international strategic order with a mixture of fear and fascination. Fear predominates.
It is interesting that this debate should follow our consensual discussion on the future of Europe and the CSCE process. The Financial Times is right to suggest that attention is being diverted from the problems of Latin America and of the wider world by our natural and commendable interest in the events taking place on our own continent.
We are inevitably preoccupied with those changes, but the development of democratic institutions and the changes in the structures of Latin America have been as dramatic, even if they have been slightly more distant, as those on the continent. They are of no less significance than developments in eastern and central Europe in particular.
Chile, for example, has moved from having a particularly nasty and repellant dictatorship to a freely elected president, who needs all the encouragement that we and the rest of Europe can give him. I understand that a the Clerk of the House went to Chile to give advice on the creation of genuinely democratic parliamentary institutions, and that kind of initiative is highly commendable.
Socialist International played a major role in the transition from Pinochet's dictatorship to the successor dictatorship, and played a significant part also in the subsequent transition and the building of the coalition that


led to the election of Chile's new president. As a result of his regular visits to that country—especially for the plebiscite and the election—my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley serves as a useful source of information for right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House.
Predictable partisan points were made by Conservative Members in respect of Nicaragua, but, contrary to all their expectations, and to all the accusations made about the Sandinistas, the transition from their Government to that of Mrs. Chamorro took place without any fear or rancour and with genuine dignity.

Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman says that there was a peaceful transfer of power, and that that continues to be the case, but is he aware of what occurred in Nicaragua on 2 July and subsequently?

Mr. Robertson: Of course I know what is happening, but, given the background of central American politics, we could not expect the kind of normal, peaceful process to which we have grown accustomed. However, that change has occurred, and it is clear that more support must be given to such Governments if their new democratic institutions are to remain in place. No Nicaraguan Government will find it easy—any more than President Ortega's Government found it easy to continue their work. 35The actions of the contras during the lifetime of that Government were a destabilising influence, and no one pretends that one can transfer instantly the values of western democracy to the countries of central America. We must recognise what is good and significant there and give whatever assistance is possible to maintain that process.
There have been democratic processes in Brazil, Uruguay and, significantly, in Argentina, as the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) says. We now have a good ambassador in place in Argentina, and we hope that the British Council will set up its own representation in Buenos Aires. Obviously for those hon. Members who remember the past few years, these events must have major significance.
Democratic progress has also been made—almost unbelievably—in Paraguay. I single out the progress in Venezuela, where Carlos Andres Perez has been elected, again with substantial support from the Socialist International, and his credentials are very high. His close links with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition mean that Venezuela's future will be reassured when Labour come to power.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Gentleman has singled out the republic of Paraguay and its progress to democracy. Is he not concerned about the close association for many years between the new president Rodriguez of Paraguay and the previous dictator, General Stroessner and what democratic credence does he give to that gentleman?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman mentions democratic progress. I do not think that any hon. Member will be happy with that progress in the short term, but we are beginning to see the break-up of the old dictatorships and that must be welcomed. Future changes must be

studied, and there is no easy transition from all the years of dictatorship to the type of pluralist society that we would obviously want in place in Paraguay and elsewhere.
As I do not intend to detain the House for long, I shall deal with a number of individual cases. First, there is the whole question of peace in central America, and there is a long way to go before we can be happy about that. I hope that the Minister will be willing to say something about the role of the United Nations in that part of the world, and the role of Mr. Marrack Goulding in running the UN supervisory zone. Clearly, we must be involved in any outside help that would be supportive of the peace process in the area, we must not be associated with arms supplies and we must be part of the overall influence that will stop such supplies to an area where the killing continues at an increased level.
Also, could the Minister react to the situation in Peru? Recent reports have been forthcoming about the disappearance of a human rights worker in that country. Mrs. Guadalupe Ccallocunto Olano, who is the general secretary of the commission of the relatives of the disappeared, and who comes from Ayacucho, has recently disappeared. She had been arrested for the fourth time since 1986 for her peaceful human rights activities and there is considerable concern about her present status. In the past nine years some 5,000 people have disappeared in Peru, and this lady is one more, but she is much more significant. Will the Minister take the matter up with the Peruvian authorities? Perhaps he can give us his assurance that something is being done on her behalf.
There is growing concern in the world community about human rights. We know of the drug situation in Colombia, but there is also rising concern in the outside world that the crisis of law and order caused by that trade is masking increasing human rights violations. In the past year alone, 3,200 political killings in Colombia have been reported. The number of disappearances is far higher now than it was during the previous two years. Reports since March 1990 suggest that torture and murder have increased in the districts of Tabor and La Sonora in the municipality of Trujillo, in the north of the Valle department. Are the Government able to say anything about that?

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman spoke at some length. I am interested in what the Minister has to say. I do not wish to cut the hon. Gentleman off, but I should be grateful if he would allow me to continue with my speech.
Threats have been made against Jaime Prieto and Humberto Torres, the president and executive secretary of the committee of solidarity with political prisoners. That is a matter of concern to a number of human rights organisations. It would be regrettable, given the problems facing the Colombian authorities, if the tendency towards a generalised repression of human rights organisations were to be masked by the excuse that it was a law and order problem. I hope that the Government will make it clear that our concern over human rights runs deep.
Latin America's problems are considerable. There is a drugs problem and a huge debt problem. The United Kingdom must do something about reducing the demand for drugs. We must ensure that existing dependent territories are not used to launder drugs money. We must


also play our part in ensuring a fair world price if alternative crops are to be grown in those countries that now depend on drugs money.
Yesterday's article in the Financial Times rightly made the point about debt rescheduling and its related aspects. It referred to the fact that we, too, can play our part. I was impressed by the paragraph that says:
The awakening of Latin America to the outside world has also flowed naturally from the disappearance over the past 10 years of military governments. A new generation of democratically-elected leaders has been quick to exploit the greater ease of international contacts that comes from political respectability.
I am sure that no hon. Member dissents from that point of view. We must all wish to encourage that process. The article concludes:
the pessimism of the 1980s has gone.
That is undoubtedly true. The future of Latin America now lies in democratic hands, the hands of the people of Latin America. We in Europe have a major role to play in assisting the instinct for self-help. If Britain genuinely wants to do so, it can spearhead the drive forward.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): As this is the third debate to which I have replied, I should point out that I must seek the leave of the House to reply to it. I hope that it is forthcoming.
The whole House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) for having brought our relations with Latin America before the House on the third successive occasion at this time of the year. After a gap of 38 years, perhaps we can establish a tradition of 38 successive years of similar debates. I thank also my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) for their kind remarks about the new post that I am shortly to take up, or that I have already taken up.
I am glad that we have another opportunity to debate Britain's relations with Latin America and that the major theme of our debate has been democracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe referred to the cascade of democracy, which is a nice concept. The world's attention in the past year has been focused on the progress of democracy in eastern Europe, but that same year has seen the culmination of the democratic process in most of Latin America.
Last year in this debate I described events in Chile as attracting particular interest and excitement as that country embarked on the return to democracy. The journey was swifter and smoother than many of us had hoped or feared. We have great admiration for the maturity displayed by the Chilean people in returning to power a moderate and humane democratic Government, firmly wedded to the free market system and respect for human rights. At the time of the transfer of power we indicated our support for the new regime by asking my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President to represent Her Majesty's Government at the ceremonies. Since then, we have been happy to receive distinguished visitors from Chile, led by the Minister of Finance, Mr. Alejandro Foxley.
I also note with admiration the continuation of the democratic process in Peru and Colombia, despite vicious armed opposition from terrorists and drug barons. As the hon. Member for Hamilton said, drugs remain a problem and narco-traffickers are a particular problem in parts of

Latin America. But the strength of dedication to democracy in those countries is an example to us all. They continue to face great difficulties, and I assure them and the House of the Government's continued support for their efforts.
As hon. Members have said, democracy also continues to develop and flourish in the rest of the sub-continent. We note with satisfaction the elections of the presidents of Brazil and Argentina by fully democratic means and the commencement of Paraguay's transition to full democracy, which we hope will be achieved in 1994. Naturally, we also welcome the restoration of full diplomatic relations with Argentina, achieved without any prejudice to our commitment to the Falkland islanders. Ambassadors are now installed in both capitals and we look forward to the re-establishment of traditional friendly and mutually beneficial relations.
In central America, the prospects for stability and the consolidation of pluralist democracy are brighter now than they have been for many years. I recognise that there are still problems to be faced, not only in Guatemala or El Salvador and Nicaragua, but the Government warmly welcome that trend and will do all that they can to encourage it. The election victory of President Violeta Chamorro in Nicaragua has been followed by the complete demobilisation of the contras under United Nations supervision, and I pay tribute to that organisation in achieving transition in Nicaragua, which has brought new hope to that country. As we speak, the latest round of peace talks is in progress in Costa Rica, between the Government of El Salvador and the Farabundo Marti de Liberation Nacional. Dialogue is under way in Guatemala between representatives of the Government and the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca.
Many complex political and social problems remain to be solved, but it is a mark of the recent success of the peace process in the region that the presidents of the central American countries and Panama were able to meet in mid-June in Antigua, Guatemala, and devote their attention to economic co-operation. The British Government and their EC partners have been actively promoting regional economic development. At their meeting in Dublin in April, central American and Community Ministers agreed that the Community would commit up to 120 million ecu to the creation of a regional payments system to promote regional trade.
I was glad to have the opportunity to visit Mexico between 14 and 18 July as a guest of the Mexican Government. My talks with Mexican Ministers covered a wide range of topics of mutual interest and helped strengthen an already excellent bilateral relationship, which we look forward to developing further.
The collapse of communism in eastern Europe and the spread of pluralist democracy in Latin America have left the unreformed communist regime in Cuba increasingly isolated. Far from adopting perestroika or democratisation, it is offering the Cuban people purification and the prospect of still greater sacrifices. Recent reports of further repression of human rights activists show the regime's contempt for basic human rights. The recent cases of people seeking asylum in embassies in Havana are an eloquent commentary on what ordinary Cubans think of the system under which they live. I hope that if we have a debate next year I shall be able to report progress to democracy in Cuba. Sadly, there is little sign of it at present.
Hon. Members mentioned the environment, and the significance of the huge and beautiful expanse of Latin America in the global environment picture needs no emphasis from me. Every region has some part to play, from the rain forests of central America to the Antarctic ice cap.
In the interests of time, I propose to concentrate on the largest country in the sub-continent, Brazil—indeed, it is approximately half its land area—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson). I do not believe that it is necessary to remind hon. Members of the overwhelming importance of Brazil in these matters. I am happy to say that we are playing a key role. The benefits of the memorandum of understanding that we signed with Brazil last year are becoming apparent. A significant forestry project on climate research has been agreed with the Brazilian authorities. We recently told them that we are ready to provide finance to a forest management project in the Tapajos reserve sponsored by the International Tropical Timber Organisation, the detailed project agreement for which is under discussion between Brazil and the ITTO. A further dozen proposals are under preparation or are being considered by the Brazilian Government and we hope to reach agreement shortly on some of them.
On my visit to Brazil for the inauguration of President Collor de Mello, I was glad to see some of the rain forest, although I was told on arrival that it was not really a rain forest but a tropical forest. However, the experts had given up persuading anybody that that is its proper designation and said that it would be called a rain forest whether it was or not. Much excellent work is being done in the area and I am glad to say that the British Government, our aid programme and British people are playing a major role in that work.
To underline the importance that we attach to our relations with Brazil, their royal highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales will pay an official visit to Brazil in the autumn and I am sure that discussion of environmental issues will play a large part in their programme. A seminar has been arranged on these issues in Brazil sponsored by the Overseas Development Administration and ICI to coincide with the royal visit.
It is not so long ago that the first word that sprang to mind on hearing any reference to Latin America was "debt", but hon. Members who follow Latin American affairs closely know that that is less and less the case. I attended a conference of The Economist recently, which had the nice title of "Life After Debt". It was clear from that conference that the Governments of Latin America have, on the whole, learnt the hard lessons to be drawn from the failures of the 1970s, have overcome the sense of hopelessness of the 1980s and, like so much of the rest of the world, are on their way to transformation in the 1990s.
To some extent, Latin America was the victim of negative external trends. Declining prices of major export commodities and high international interest rates were two obvious examples. The role of domestic policy for Latin American countries cannot be neglected. Inappropriate economic models and theories which led to policies that made the situation much worse contributed to the problems of the 1970s and 1980s. I am happy to say that Governments in Latin America, as elsewhere, now

recognise the need to jettison outdated ideologies. That does not mean abandoning fundamental principles, but it means making a radical reappraisal of the assumptions that determine how we pursue our common goals.
One lesson that has been learnt is that social equity and economic development are not incompatible. They can and must be successfully combined, as has been shown in, for example, Bolivia. I therefore particularly welcome the evidence that almost all Governments in Latin America now recognise that sensible economic policies are a prerequisite for establishing credibility and recreating confidence. Without those important steps, the vital inflow of foreign direct investment and the repatriation of flight capital are unlikely to occur.
In most Latin American countries, confidence remains fragile. Gains won at heavy cost over a number of years could evaporate at the first sign of backsliding and weakening commitment to the economic changes. It is crucial that efforts should not be prematurely relaxed and that rapid action is taken to tackle any adverse shocks. It is encouraging that most of the countries in the region have liberalised their foreign exchange regimes and done away with the absurdly overvalued currencies which allowed an import boom, but, equally, led to the collapse of competition in exports.
Trade at correct prices is crucial. Exposure to international competition may be a shock to start with, but in the long run it is beneficial. The efficiency of domestic industry is sharpened, inputs can be obtained more easily and foreign companies provide new sources of investment and state-of-the-art technology. Countries can assess more accurately the areas in which they have advantages. Effective employment of these allows countries that have felt themselves marginalised for too long to make progress.
The importance attached by the region to the multilateral trading system is seen in the positive contribution made by many nations to negotiations in the multilateral forums. Countries are increasingly using the general agreement on tariffs and trade as an instrument to support their developmental aims—we welcome particularly Mexico's membership of the organisation.
This must, however, go hand in hand with reform in the economy. It is surely unsustainable that in Argentina recently only 40,000 people out of a work force of 12 million paid income tax and that in Sao Paulo state only 58 per cent. of the assessed taxes were collected, leaving aside what was not assessed; yet is it not impossible to overcome this fiscal black hole. Bolivia has shown that simplification of taxes and transparency of administration can yield startling results. The tax take has increased dramatically from 1 per cent. of GDP in 1985 to 8 per cent. in 1988. This was achieved through cutting the number for taxes from over 400 to seven and significantly broadening the tax base. Mexico has followed a similar path, cutting punitive top rates of tax and increasing the efficiency of tax collection, leading to greater tax receipts.
I am happy to report that the zeal for privatisation in Latin America outstrips even that of the British Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham pointed out. Chile privatised twice the assets in half the time. Mexico shows signs of following the same road, particularly through the privatisation of the banks. Argentina and Brazil both have ambitious plans to introduce the virtues of private enterprise into previously stagnant state sectors. Combined with the opening of the region to foreign investment, this should return the private


sector to its proper role as the motor of growth. In countries with the courage to try them, such changes are a breath of fresh air.
Outside help is also needed, and in this context there is much to welcome in President Bush's initiative. The Houston summit concluded that the United States efforts
hold great promise for the region, and shall help improve prospects for sustained growth in the Americas".
Some aspects naturally require further discussion, such as implications for debt strategy, and the proposed multilateral investment fund. While the initiative largely involves bilateral actions by the United States, we shall be considering carefully the elements in which the United States is seeking European participation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham spoke of the fear that was felt by many Latin Americans about the diversion of resources from Latin America to eastern Europe. This seems to me to be one of those myths that grow constantly in the telling, and I should like to scotch it here. The return to democracy in eastern Europe—nearly 10 years after the same phenomenon started in Latin America, incidentally—is a thoroughly good thing for humanity, and will, I hope, remove a dangerous area of instability in global politics.
Of course we pay closer attention to what is happening in eastern Europe, and of course we shall help the fledgling democracies there. For decades, tension in Europe was of vital concern to our national security; now that that era is coming to an end, no one should be surprised at the enthusiasm with which we support the changes. But let us ditch the idea that eastern Europe will starve Latin America of investment. In 1989—a difficult year for Latin American economies—United Kingdom companies were the second largest investors, after the United States of America, in many Latin American countries, and in Colombia they made more investment applications than all other countries combined, including the United States. Many United Kingdom investors tell us that this or that country in the region yields them the highest returns in the world.
What will determine commercial investment in Latin America is not what is happening in eastern Europe, but the opportunities for attractive investments in Latin America. Investments go where the conditions are right, and only regional Governments can create those conditions.
Human rights have been mentioned, quite correctly. Hand in hand with the return to democracy in Latin America goes a welcome improvement in the human rights performance. We warmly commend the Governments in

Argentina, Uruguay and, most recently, Chile for the way in which they have put paid to torture, arbitrary arrest, military courts and "disappearances". We sympathise with the democratic leaders who are trying to come to terms with the damage and polarisation of society brought about by such abuses. The hon. Member for Hamilton referred to a number of individual cases; I shall not respond now, but perhaps I could write to him later.
We shall maintain the pressure on countries in the area whose human rights performance remains unsatisfactory. It is not difficult to see how pressure from ruthless opponents may tempt Governments to respond in kind. That is no excuse, however, and we and the rest of the international community expect such Governments to observe the norms of international law.
Hon. Members will be aware that there are continuing and increasing demands on our aid programme. They will also be aware that, for good reasons, United Kingdom aid is targeted at the poorest countries in the world, and at the Commonwealth. None the less, we have been able to maintain, and indeed increase, our aid provision for Latin America. The relative prosperity of the area as a whole, when compared with the world's poorest nations, means that only a small proportion of our overall financial aid is directed towards Latin America—Bolivia benefits from that. The remainder of our aid activity is in the form of technical assistance, and we propose to increase it to assist forestry projects with an environmental aspect.
I conclude that the three interrelated elements for sustained prosperity in Latin America are now in place: a flexible and well-managed domestic economy, a positive world environment and an appropriate balance of external financial support. If the trends of the recent past are continued, the future for Latin America is bright indeed, and a return to the years of rapid growth and fulfilment of the region's huge latent potential will again become a real possibility.
It is almost exactly a year ago that I made my first speech in the House after taking up my responsibilities at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It was in reply to a debate on a similar occasion on Britain's relations with Latin America. Since then I am delighted to have seen much of Latin America, met many of the leaders, politicians and business men and learnt a lot more about the area. Perhaps it is appropriate that, 363 days later, the last remarks I shall make before moving to the Department of Trade and Industry are also in reply to a debate on Latin America. I am delighted to have had the opportunity to do so and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham for making it possible.

Training Programme (Wales)

Mr. Ray Powell: I congratulate the Minister of State, Welsh Office on avoiding all the shuffling that has gone on over the past 24 hours and coming out on top. I also congratulate him on the sympathetic ear he usually lends us when we are discussing training, employment and unemployment in Wales.
I hope that during this short debate the Minister will take note of the introduction of the new scheme under employment training and the contracts that have now been issued to those who have been managing employment training in Wales for some years.
Although this is the last debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, I am sure that it is of great importance to Wales, the House and the nation.
The Department of Employment issued a document about the challenge of jobs and unemployment. It referred to the Madrid European Council in June 1989 and said:
12 Community countries put the creation and development of jobs and the reduction of unemployment at the top of Europe's agenda for the people of the Community.
All Community countries know that creating more jobs will do more than anything else to improve living standards … because throughout the Community it is unemployed people whose living standards are the poorest.
With over 14 ½ million people unemployed in the Community, over half of whom have been out of work for a year or more, the importance of jobs should cover everything we do as a Community.
On vocational training it said:
If Europe is to prosper in the 1990s, investment in training for skills and jobs is vital … We know we cannot afford our work force to be undertrained and undereducated compared with our competitors.
We need to place new emphasis on the importance of vocational education and training throughout working life.
It said that the Government must help young people in the transition from school to work, help the unemployed to learn the skills to find jobs and establish an education system which meets the needs of the labour market.
On that basis, it is important for the Minister, the Welsh Office and the Government to appreciate that more funding is needed for employment training in Wales. Because of the shortage of time I recommend that all hon. Members re-read the third report of the Select Committee of Employment on employment training. I cannot go into detail because of the lack of time, but it is necessary to mention that report. The Committee spent considerable time examining witnesses and took a great deal of time to prepare the report. I commend it to hon. Members. It highlights the problems of employment training throughout the United Kingdom.
When we talk about employment and unemployment we should mention certain people who are in employment. In particular, we should mention the people who met hon. Members last week when they presented a petition signed by 1,500 Remploy workers and 10,000 members of the public calling for increased taxpayer support for Remploy so that the company can pay its workers a decent wage.
Remploy was set up in 1946. It is supported by the taxpayer and its main remit is to provide useful sheltered employment for people with disabilities. Over the past 10 years the level of support has been cut and that in turn has led to lower wages. Under the agreed pay formula, the basic rate should be £124 a week. At the moment it is only £96·54. The latest review proposes to raise it to £105, but

that has been rejected and the workers are currently holding a ballot to decide upon industrial action for the first time in their history. That is an indictment of the Welsh Ofice and of the Government.
In the short time left, I want to refer to the CATO organisation in Ogmore in the Ogwr borough. As a result of the escalation of unemployment in my constituency in 1979, we set up CATO to combat the massive redundancies at the Port Talbot steel works and those arising from the closure of so many collieries in my constituency. When the Welsh Office and Ministers refer to the reduction in unemployment, they should be aware that they are reducing the unemployment that they have created since 1979. We used to have 3·7 per cent. unemployment in Ogmore, but within two years it escalated to 23 per cent. As a result of that, CATO was set up to retrain the large number of people who were made redundant.
CATO was set up in 1980 and within two years we had 650 places and 150 on YTS. That provided employment for nearly 800 which we would not have had without the establishment of CATO.
The Minister visited a farm in the Garw valley which CATO, a registered charity, had set up. CATO purchased 88 acres of agricultural and horticultural land to train people in those areas. Its investment commitment was £100,000. However, overnight the Government decided to relegate the importance of training agricultural and horticultural workers to the third standard of priority. Despite all its investment on employment training, CATO is no longer recommended for consideration, despite the fact that only a few years ago it appeared high on the list.
CATO provides different training routes including modern office technology, horticulture, agriculture, graphics, computers, driving instruction, motor vehicle technology, caring, catering, caretaking, child care, plastering, carpentry, bricklaying, painting, music, drawing office practice, literacy and numeracy.
Within a matter of days CATO was offered a 44-week contract under the new scheme, which meant, in effect, that the number of places that it had in employment training would be reduced from 280 to 217—a loss of 63 places. In his answer to a previous question by me, the Minister of State claimed that CATO had not filled all those places. One of the reasons for that was that, under the new scheme, it was not allowed to fill its own places—they had to be recommended by the training agents. It was not allowed to recruit at the start of ET. Now it is allowed to recruit, and it could get well over the number that it was allocated on the old scheme.
The new scheme, with a loss of 63 places, with a loss of grant per trainee of 98p, and with a grant over the 44-week period, would have meant CATO accepting a contract at a loss of more than £109,000. All training agencies throughout Wales are suffering as a result of the new contract that the Government have offered.
In Mid Glamorgan the training managers association has met and outlined numerous problems with the funding of the new contract. Its main concern is a serious cut in funding brought about by a cut in the number of places allocated to each training manager, and no increase in the allowance per trainee to take into account inflation since 1988. Training managers are being penalised because the number of trainees directed to them by employment services are low. Subsequently, they have had to use their own limited resources to recruit. Training managers are


expected to supplement income by placing trainees with employers. In practice, as ET is a voluntary scheme, trainees refuse to go on placement with employers who may be approved for practical training.
Many trainees are low achievers, and have personality, character and domestic problems. Following interview by potential host employers, they are found to be unsuitable. Many training managers feel that 60 per cent. of their intakes fall into that category. In addition, many training managers are owed large sums from employers who have taken trainees for practical experience. Deductions are now being made in the allowances afforded to training managers for unauthorised absences of trainees. Overheads still have to be met by training managers, even if the trainee is absent. The Minister of State should take that point into consideration.
Many large companies do not wish to participate in employment training for fear of internal personnel problems such as using trainees to fill job vacancies. The Government have greatly publicised their dedication to providing training for the future work force of the country. Why has funding across the board been cut at the level of the organisations that are expected to provide the quality training that they demand? Again, there has been much publicity of the Government's eagerness to see women returners to the labour market. Why have those people been categorised as non-mainstream trainees? If the Government are so keen to see them back into the world of work, why are the training providers' number of places limited to such returners?
It is obvious that the Government expect quality training with recognised qualifications. Surely they realise that the 12-month period allowed on ET does not give enough time for all trainees to achieve such qualifications. Although extended training may be allowed in exceptional circumstances, the numbers that CATO is allowed to offer are limited.
I have a great many notes which I shall have to throw away as a result of the curtailment of the debate. Part of the problem of training organisations in Wales is not just the financial problem and the contract for which they had only a few days to accept, sign and agree. Part of the problem is that the Training Agency is holding back the up-front funding, which has put all the training agencies into arrears. As a consequence, they have had to borrow from the banks and to arrange overdraft facilities to pay the salary bills. The Minister should consider that problem soon.
We all know about the Tory record on training, but Labour plans to introduce a properly funded scheme for young people with real qualifications at the end of it and union rates of pay while on placement. I feel like an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman describing what Labour will do, while speaking from the Back Benches. The new opportunities training scheme will enable people in work to have the chance to gain new skills or retrain with paid time off work. We will give unemployed people, including those over 50, the chance to train in the most marketable skills with a training allowance equal to the national minimum wage. We shall give women the chance to retrain in the new skills needed when they return to work after having children. We shall ensure that all children have equal access to higher education.
We will give priority to developing skills in the new industries that will spearhead the development of the

British industry. I hope that it will not be long before we are in government to introduce the schemes on employment training that I have outlined.

Mr. Paul Murphy: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) on introducing the debate. One of my hon. Friend's greatest heroes was Aneurin Bevan who talked about the commanding heights of the economy. We all agree that, now, the commanding height of the economy is the training of our young people in preparation for 1992 and the next century.
In Wales training in the manufacturing and engineering industries has unquestionably declined in the past decade. In 1981 there were 8,000 manufacturing trainees, but by 1988 that figure had dropped to 3,500. In 1978 there were 896 trainees in engineering, but now there are about 310.
The past decade has been marked by the Government's miserable training record. Our schools have been under-resourced and we face a massive shortage of skilled workers, but compared with other countries, fewer young people under 16 now stay on for education and training. A third of such young people stay on in Britain, compared with 44 per cent. in West Germany, 68 per cent. in France, 87 per cent. in the United States and a record 89 per cent. in Japan. There are fewer trainees in Britain than there are in South Korea or Taiwan, which suggests that we had better have a serious rethink about our training policies.
In Wales we do slightly better than the United Kingdom as a whole. However, only 36 per cent. of young people stay on at school or college after 16–48,000 out of 130,000. We believe that the Conservatives' remedies, designed to improve training, have signally failed. There has been no overall strategy—we have been treated to schemes, more schemes and nothing but schemes.
We do not believe that market forces provide the answer. The TECs are wholly unrepresentative, their budgets have been reduced and their targets already ditched. In Wales the budget of the Training Agency has been halved from £10 million to £5 million. The sell-off of the Skills Training Agency amounts to nothing short of a public scandal.
The youth training scheme has been cut by 40 per cent. In the Principality only three out of five trainees obtain any sort of qualification from YTS and 27 per cent. go back on to the dole.
Many of us believe that employment training has become almost a joke in the Principality. There has been a 15 per cent. cut in its budget, but there are thousands of vacancies. Above all, our young people are disillusioned by, and lack confidence in, the training schemes.
I declare an interest as a consultant for the further education teachers' union. Having said that, I remind the House that in the years that I spent in further education in Ebbw Vale in south Wales, the greatest problem for young people was unquestionably that of trying to get a decent training after the age of 16. That has not changed in all these years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore mentioned what Labour's plans are likely to be. We will set up "Skills Wales" for adult training with training and enterprise councils. Training and enterprise councils will be more broadly based and will include representatives of trade unions and of local authorities and communities. We shall


set up clear, nationally accredited training qualifications. We will end any compulsion to participate in ET, and we do not believe that such training should be related in any way to benefit.
Training is not about massaging the unemployment figures but about securing the future of Wales and its young people, and we are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore for bringing the matter to the attention of the Principality and the House.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): I thank the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) for his opening remarks. I am glad to hear the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) at least say that if the Opposition were returned to government, they would retain the training and enterprise councils that the Government have set up.
Let me make it absolutely clear that the Government attach enormous importance to training. We regard it as the most important factor contributing to the development of Wales in the years ahead. Government expenditure on training is nearly three times more in real terms than it was in 1978–79. It has increased by 60 per cent. over the past four years, while over the same period unemployment has fallen by 45 per cent.
It would be unrealistic to expect the previous high level of expenditure on training to be maintained while unemployment has fallen dramatically. It is only to be expected that there should be some downward adjustment in the Government contribution to training, simply because fewer people now need support on Government training programmes. The case load is down and therefore expenditure is down. Opposition Members may find that unpalatable, but they cannot argue with the logic.
Nevertheless, the funding is considerable: for training and enterprise programmes, it is more than £91·5 million this year. The combined budget for youth training and employment training is more than £76 million. Those are substantial sums of money, particularly when set against the fact that unemployment in Wales has tumbled by no less than 94,000 over the past four years.
The hon. Member for Ogmore mentioned the recontracting process between the Training Agency and its training providers. Much of the concern arose at the start of the negotiating process into which the Training Agency

entered with training providers, but in the event, I am glad to say, it has proved possible to reach agreement on almost all cases and most contracts have been signed. In fact, in the end, the main providers have settled at higher levels of funding. The purposes of the recontracting exercise were to introduce new flexibilities into the funding and delivery of employment training to prepare the ground for TECs to take them over; to pave the way for the introduction of the new youth training scheme from May 1990; and to reduce overcapacity and introduce better cost-effectiveness.
Our primary concern has been to ensure that the right sort of training is available for individual people and we shall continue to cater for a full range of clients.
The hon. Member for Ogmore is well known for his work as a director of Community Activities and Training in Ogwr, or CATO. It is true that there has been a decline in the number of places offered, but that is because the places previously on offer were not completely taken up. The occupancy rate for 1989–90 had declined from a peak of 292 to 220 by 9 May this year. So the offer for 1990–91 is for 217 places.
I understand that the Training Agency has held a constructive and amicable meeting with CATO at which certain problems were identified and possible solutions discussed.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to Remploy. It is not a training agency as such: it provides sheltered work, not training, but I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend—

It being Nine o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That—

(1) this House do meet on Thursday 26th July, at half-past Nine o'clock;
(2) notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 17 (Questions to Members), no Questions shall be taken, provided that at Eleven o'clock Mr. Speaker may interrupt the proceedings in order to permit Questions to be asked which are in his opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business, statements to be made by Ministers, or personal explanations to be made by Members; and
(3) at half-past Three o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question, provided that the House shall not adjourn until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Community Charge (Service Men)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]

9 am

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I am delighted to have the opportunity of introducing the Adjournment debate, the more so as it is being held at a civilised time of day. I believe that the effects of the community charge on service men should be discussed before the House rises for the summer recess and that remedial action should be taken sooner rather than later.
I raise this subject at an appropriate time, following the dramatic political developments in eastern Europe in the past few months and, more parochially, the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on local government finance last week.
Whenever major legislative changes are mooted, they inevitably cause disruption, uncertainty and occasionally dismay. The introduction of the community charge has been particularly difficult because, although there has been recognition—by Conservative Members at least—that the rating system was both discredited and unfair, an equitable alternative has proved elusive.
Following these fundamental changes, Members from both sides of the House will have taken up cases of constituents whose circumstances have highlighted the anomalies in the application of the new system. It is thus not surprising, although hardly excusable, that the lot of service men seems to have been dealt with inadequately. My purpose today is not to lay blame for the situation at any particular door, although I suspect that my hon. Friend the Minister and those responsible in the military hierarchy will acknowledge that there have been some deficiencies in the presentation and the application of this new form of local taxation. My purpose is to identify areas of apparent difficulty—I emphasise "apparent" knowing that my hon. Friend has the facilities to rebut my arguments—in the hope that any injustices can be rectified in the interests of the welfare of our armed forces.
I have consistently, both in the spoken word and in political pamphlets, urged the need for greater accountability of local government. Now is not the time to rehearse the general arguments, but I should like to examine their application in the context of the armed forces.
First, I ask the House to consider the principle of accountability. Service men are usually registered as either postal or proxy voters, and thus are unlikely to have a vote in the area in which they pay the community charge. By the nature of things, service men are less likely to register than civilian voters. I recently visited, on an informal basis, a United Kingdom-based regiment in which fewer than 60 per cent. of the strength was registered, and of that group only 2·5 per cent. was eligible to vote in the local area. There are many examples of military units with lower percentages in both categories. Indeed, if there is no local recruiting, the latter percentage may fall towards zero.
The principle of local authority accountability is therefore not applicable. By definition, service men are unable to vote with their feet by moving to a local authority with a more acceptable community charge, as their duties decree otherwise.
Secondly, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the position of single soldiers in barrack accommodation. I do not pretend that they are unique, but without doubt they

are unusual because they are expected to pay for local authority services such as refuse collection, road sweeping, grass cutting, sports facilities, housing, street lighting, pre-school education and even cemeteries although another authority, the Army, provides for them in all respects.
One of the main tenets of the community charge legislation was that people should pay for the services that they use. The fairness of that at least was recognised by most of those who were liable for the charge. It is a good deal less justifiable in a service context and the situation is aggravated if, because of the moratorium on service contracts, soldiers themselves are doing jobs that were previously carried out by the Property Services Agency or other contractors. An added irony is the total exemption from community charge of, for example, United States and German service men who are stationed in this country and who use local services as little as their British counterparts.
The problem is worsened by the change in eligibility for rebates. Under the rating system single soldiers who went on exercise received a rebate on rates. Now the rebate is available only if they go on exercise overseas and clearly, when a soldier is in the field he obtains no benefit from the local authority. I understand that there is an exemption for a single soldier if he is posted for more than two months. But for married men the exemption becomes operative only after six months and one day. In Northern Ireland, where no community charge is payable, a typical posting varies between four and six months. Thus, the regulation is a strange one indeed. My hon. Friend the Minister is aware that accommodation in Northern Ireland is often spartan, to say the least.
A single soldier in barracks in Great Britain is liable for community charge at a rate levied by the relevant local authority which, although capped—I use the term in this specific context—still allows for variations of up to £52 per year. That soldier may have to sleep four to a room and exceptionally—I have seen it for myself—there may be up to eight to a room in substandard accommodation with a 9 ft by 6 ft bed space in a barrack block of 50 men.
The equity of the system is difficult to perceive, although no service man would wish to expect to be mollycoddled. While serving overseas a service man will be expected to pay a facilities charge. I understand that that charge is designed to replace the rates element of the accommodation charges overseas. But there is considerable confusion in the services about the reason behind what is being paid for and who receives the funds that are levied.
In this debate I do not wish to go into the finer points of the argument, but I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to review the logic of this new system, if only to make it simpler to explain and administer. Last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment not only ironed out anomalies but achieved greater simplicity in the interpretation of the law without the need to bring forward new legislation. I trust that my hon. Friend will be able to apply the same yardstick to the facilities charge.
Service men will have welcomed the fact that the Government are now to impose rules for the multiplier for the standard community charge. The abuse by local authorities of their discretionary powers was outrageous, with an almost uniform use of a factor of two. That was especially onerous for people who had to live in particular premises as a condition of their job.
A service man is of necessity a nomad. The proposed maximum multiplier of one will certainly alleviate the lot of a married service man posted overseas, but it still may not go far enough.
The changes in transitional relief were also welcomed by the population as a whole, but my hon. Friend will be aware that single service men in barracks in this country were particularly hard hit by the introduction of the community charge because the rates were administered through their pay. They could now still be liable to pay over £5 a week more, without being eligible for transitional relief. If my facts are correct, and if the position cannot be justified, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will act to rectify matters.
Lastly, we must consider the sensitive matter of so-called winners and losers. I do not wish to weary the House with the old arguments about the ability to pay. Knowing the considerable contribution made through central Government to local government expenditure, I have never had significant reservations in that respect. If I may be allowed to digress, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) on his new appointment. I regret that it will mean a lull in his carefully argued contributions to debates in the House which were always well worth listening to. My hon. Friend produced a telling phrase when he declared that the losers felt livid and the gainers felt guilty. Service structure and discipline are such that that would be an overstatement in the context in which I use the phrase.
The fact remains that the figures that I have been given for a regiment in the south of England show that the greatest loser is the married private or lance corporal, and the greatest gainer is a married commanding officer. The middle of the pendulum swing—the point at which losers become gainers—could not be more inappropriate. It is precisely between the figure for a married warrant officer and a single subaltern. As we await the publication of the "Options for Change" study, that position can lead only to more uncertainty with the added element of resentment within the services.
As my hon. Friend the Minister and I have served in the Army, we are well aware that to refer to a regiment as a family has a sound basis. Unless the position that I have highlighted is remedied, it is likely to cause unease—I put it no higher than that—in the family. It may be stretching a point, but it has been suggested that promotion of the welfare of the family should be a feature of the Government's next term.
Furthermore, if, as expected, the strength of our services is reduced—not I trust, at a precipitate rate, in view of the inherent danger of a changing but unstable world—more demobbed soldiers will face housing problems in local authority areas. I am already aware of the cases of two soldiers and their families who are having to live in hostels because no council housing is available. Although the services do much to promote home ownership during military service, that cannot be universal. It is to be deplored that such cases can occur after soldiers have given 12 to 15 years' service to the Crown.
I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that the best solution to many of the problems that I have outlined would be a flat-rate capped level of community charge to

apply to the services on a nationwide basis. I was tempted to use the word "uniform" but I suspect that opportunities for a pun on the word could make it inappropriate. My suggestion would reduce bureaucracy, which often ties up one officer full time in every unit to record a complex pattern of postings. It would promote fairness and it would eliminate the problem of a soldier based, for example, in Yorkshire doing the same job as a soldier in Wiltshire but paying different rates of community charge.
I have heard that the extra financial difficulties are becoming a major contributory factor in persuading service men to leave the service. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has no illusions about the importance of retaining trained soldiers.
The armed forces have been put at a particular disadvantage in the application of the community charge. Its implications have been badly received and more so as they have become clearer. Service men have been inhibited in their ability to complain. Not only are there conventions about individual representations to the press, but often there is no easy access to a Member of Parliament.
The strength of the British service man is that over the years he has shown that he can adapt to almost anything. The perceived unfairness of the community charge at a time of general uncertainty is placing his tolerance and resilience under severe pressure.
I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to offer some constructive comments, to make up part of the service dividend that is so vital for the well-being and morale of our service men, for whatever tasks lie ahead.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I congratulate and compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) on securing this debate at such a human hour. If we could always guarantee to have Adjournment debates at nine o'clock in the morning, I am sure that there would be a dividend for all right hon. and hon. Members in terms of our quality of life.
I welcome this opportunity to debate the general subject of the effect of the community charge on service men and to comment on many of the specific points that my hon. Friend raised. He was kind enough to give me advance warning of some of them, and I hope to consider many of them in the time available. I will of course write to my hon. Friend with any outstanding answers.
The introduction of the community charge signalled a sea change in local government finance, spreading the responsibility for the cost of local services and amenities across a far broader range of the population than was the case under domestic rating—highlighting costs and increasing the accountability of local authorities to their residents. As a per capita levy, the community charge is essentially fairer than domestic rates because it is the number of individuals rather than the size of property that influences demand for the various local amenities and services funded through the charge. All residents may benefit from such services and amenities, irrespective of whether they personally paid rates.
All those fundamental arguments apply to service personnel as strongly as they do to other members of the community at large. At a very early stage, therefore, the Government decided after careful consideration that members of the armed forces should, in general, be subject


to the community charge in the same way as the remainder of the population. They would be directly liable for the personal community charge to the local authority in whose area they had their sole or main residence.
Before the introduction of the community charge, service personnel paid elements for domestic rates within their standard accommodation charges. They were derived from the average contributions paid over to local authorities in lieu of rates by the Government for each broad type of accommodation, and those elements were reduced for worse quality accommodation. Now that the community charge applies, those domestic rate elements have been removed altogether, providing amounts that may be offset against liability for the charge.
Service personnel living in public accommodation—be it a married quarter, mess or barracks—have no choice at all over where they live, as my hon. Friend said. They are ordered to a particular place, and are allocated a particular unit of accommodation, with no choice or control over its location. They could therefore find themselves compelled to move to an exceptionally high community charge area, whereas a colleague might be sent to a lower charge area nearby.
We recognised that degree of unavoidable liability, and made arrangements under which no member of the armed forces—or their spouse—living in service accommodation effectively has to pay more than the average community charge for such accommodation, plus £1 per week, by a scheme of accommodation charge refunds.
For the current year, the service average community charge is £325, so the maximum individual liability is £377 including the £52 added on, against an overall national average of £357. The cost of this scheme—estimated at £1·1 million in the current year—has been taken into account by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body in setting the general level of accommodation charges.
Our personnel in public accommodation are therefore able to benefit from low levels of community charge, yet their maximum potential liability is generously limited. This year, the community charge payable in service accommodation ranges from if one can believe it, low points of £87 in the Shetlands and £150 on the mainland, which is the Wandsworth community charge, to £377, net of the accommodation charge refund payable in high charge areas. Without our refund scheme, the maximum would be £548.
My hon. Friend mentioned that these personnel make little call on local facilities, but they are available for use should they choose to do so or, in the case of emergency services, if they need them and the locally provided infrastructure of roads, lighting and so on will be supporting or surrounding the establishments where they work. Service personnel of course already contributed to the cost of local services through their rates elements. Doubtless most members of the population could think of particular services or amenities that they do not use, but it is an established principle that payment cannot be on an a la carte basis. My hon. Friend made the point that people should pay for the services that they use, but, as I am sure that he would acknowledge, much of local expenditure goes on education, and people without children, or those who send their children to private schools, could argue that they should not be contributing to it.
Personnel living in their own homes are a different case. They can take account of varying levels of community

charge in deciding where to establish their homes, in just the same way as they could take different levels of domestic rates into account in the past.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, service personnel are an exceptionally mobile category. The average length of their tours of duty is measured in months, rather than years, and at the end of each tour there is almost invariably a geographical move. Because of this, and because many of them may transfer for short periods to other service locations—for a training course or exercise perhaps—we felt that it would be helpful to agree guidelines with community charge registration officers, about the location of the "sole or main residence" of personnel in common circumstances, to help ensure equity of treatment, and minimise delays in effecting the correct registration for service personnel. These guidelines were published as a community charge practice note. They have been promulgated widely throughout the armed forces, and copies were placed in the Library of the House. The guidelines include the general presumption that a service man's sole or main residence is where he lives at his place of duty, although he may claim different treatment if the facts of his case justify it.
One consequence is that all service units pass brief details of their personnel on a regular basis to community charge registration officers. This places an additional administrative burden on units, but one which we judge to be in the best interests of our personnel. It helps to minimise the action required by individuals on posting, and ensures that people moving away—perhaps overseas where no community charge applies—are transferred from the old register without delay. It also represents a considerable help to registration officers in their maintenance of accurate registers. We provide only the minimum information necessary for the administration of the charge. We do not specify military ranks, nor do we give subordinate addresses within the confines of unit boundaries.
My hon. Friend's point about the principle of local authority accountability is well taken. Service personnel are advised on entry of the existing special arrangements to enable them to vote in United Kingdom elections. Annual reminders are given through notice board displays, while further advice is always available. My hon. Friend said that many service personnel vote by proxy or postal means. Currently some 65 per cent. of service personnel have registered to vote. In my opinion that is much too low a figure. My hon. Friend made the point that in one unit he had visited the figure was 60 per cent.
We are implementing a number of measures aimed at increasing this figure. We are improving both our records of those who have registered and our methods of informing and advising those who have yet to register. Registration for local government elections in the area where the service man is living at the time is a different matter, however, and it is quite true that very few personnel take the trouble to register for and vote in local elections. We are looking at ways in which this position might be improved, and I will write to my hon. Friend about our intentions when these become clearer.
My hon. Friend mentioned that many service personnel would have preferred there to be a common averaged or standardised rate of community charge payable by all members of the armed forces, irrespective of where they were serving. This would have been administratively simpler, without the need for re-registering with every


move of location, but it would have cut across the fundamental principle of local accountability that the community charge regime aims to strengthen. It would have broken the key link between the amounts that charge payers actually pay and the level of local services that they enjoy. It would also have been hard to justify to our personnel living in low community charge areas why they should pay a higher charge than their civilian neighbours for precisely the same services and amenities.
A limited number of service personnel are exempt from the formal provisions of the legislation on liability for the personal community charge and registration. This applies to personnel in short-stay accommodation, where registration would not be practicable and to those whose registration would not be in the interests of national security. The Ministry of Defence makes payments in lieu to local authorities on their behalf, and recovers these contributions from them at the local community charge rate. In effect, we operate a collective community charge regime for this group.
I mentioned earlier that the former rates elements in accommodation charges worldwide had been removed with the introduction of the community charge. Overseas, the facilities charge has now taken their place. That charge represents a contribution to the costs of facilities and amenities available to members of the services and their families overseas, from which they continue to derive the same benefit as before. They include infrastructure items such as lighting, refuse disposal, fire and other emergency services, through education—for children and adults—to sports or leisure activities and welfare services. The facilities charge this year is set at a maximum of £246 per head, or £492 per married quarter, and is reduced for lower ranks and those in worse-grade accommodation. No one is currently paying more than 50p a week above last year's equivalent domestic rates element, uprated to April 1990 prices. For a typical soldier's married quarters overseas, the total charges payable rose by about 7 per cent. in April, almost exactly the same percentage as the first stage of the 1990 pay award.
Very many service personnel own their own homes, but not all of them wish, or are able, to buy and sell every time they move from one duty location to another. In the past they would have had to meet the rates liability on those homes, but now they are potentially liable for the standard community charge if the property is no one's sole or main residence. The rules for the standard charge permit local authorities to set standard community charge multipliers

of various levels up to twice their personal community charge for different categories of property. Some authorities have been exercising their discretion reasonably, setting a multiplier of zero—in effect levying no charge—or one, or allowing an initial period of grace. But other authorities have been applying the maximum multiplier of two times the personal charge. One, the city of Lincoln, even discriminates against the service home owner working elsewhere by applying a multiplier of two for this category, while granting civilians in the same position the benefit of a multiplier of zero.
I am happy to say that one of the new measures arising from the Government's review of the community charge, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment last Thursday, is the prescribing of a maximum multiplier of one for property that is empty because the owner has to live elsewhere as a condition of his or her employment. This will apply from next April and should benefit service home owners whose homes are empty because they are "following the flag" and living at their unit. It will remain open to local authorities to set a multiplier lower than one, and I hope that this option will continue to be exercised in future.
Under existing legislation, letting out such a property on a lease of six months or more normally transfers the community charge liability to the tenants. We already give financial assistance to personnel who wish to let their property when they are serving elsewhere, and will pay the costs of drawing up the tenancy agreement and inventory, and of recovering possession, should that unfortunately prove necessary. Many of the other costs associated with letting, such as advertising or agents' fees, may additionally be offset against tax.
The community charge is a complex subject, particularly as it affects service personnel. We have issued copious guidance to service units and for wider dissemination, and have circulated leaflets on an individual basis to every member of the armed forces. Copies of that material were placed in the Library of the House at the time of issue. We have also published articles in service newspapers, broadcast on British Forces Broadcasting Service and given a number of local presentations.
All in all, I believe that we have responded appropriately to the introduction of the community charge. We have recognised the particular needs of service personnel and balanced them fairly against the other interests involved, without breaching the principles of the charge.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Nine o'clock.